httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wilson <and...@tees.elsevier.co.uk>
Subject Survey information...and names for Apache
Date Thu, 30 Nov 1995 22:42:08 GMT

Ok, so you think you're hot, flooding my email with all this traffic...


THE SURVEY

The new survey will be out sometime late Saturday.  Its based on over
60 thousand responses from polled servers and you can probably guess
the results (though to be fair you'd have to drink quite a bit
first...).  Without giving the game away I can tell you that some
oddities have appeared, not the least being the curiously named:

	VApache/0.8.14	(over 400! entires)

Huh?  Cheers guys...


NAMES FOR APACHE

Sameer's interested in what to call the animal he's taming.  Well
here's a tip, follow the convention being used by these guys (in
*alphabetical* order)

	Apache/0.6.5
	Apache/0.8.13
	Apache/0.8.14
	Apache/0.8.8
	BESTWWWD/1.0
	CERN/3.0 
	CERN/3.0pre6
	NCSA/1.3
	NCSA/1.4
	NCSA/1.4.2
	NCSA/1.4.1
	NCSA/1.5
	Netscape-Commerce/1.12
	Netscape-Commerce/1.1
	Netscape-Communications/1.1
	WebSite/1.0         
	WebSTAR/1.2.1

You get the idea:

	FAMILY-VARIANT/VERSION

eg:

	Apache-Encrypt/0.0.1		(go on call it */1.0.0 if you want)

The reasons are two-fold.  firstly there's a precedent for using the
simple family-variant/version convention, so why fight nature?

Secondly, it's not Apache/1.0.0, and it's not Apache-SSL (which is
really Apache + some additional spice), it's actually a different
server, with its own version history and source tree.  To quote sameer:

> 	I need to find a name to release my commercial Apache/SSL
> under. I can't just call it Apache/SSL because that is too generic,
> would lend to confusion between my package which includes support,
> commmercial licensing, etc. and the patches that Ben is making
> available as Apache/SSL without commercial licensing (of course for
> the UK the issue of commercial licensing is rather moot.)
> 	I *could* go with the marketing viewpoint and pick an
> inaccurate name like "Apache Secure", but that would be lame, so I'm

			      ^ spaces, ew...

> thinking about "Apache/Encrypt+".

			^ mmm, where's the version number.  It can't be
			1.0.0 because that's Apache Group's products
			version number and you're modifying that
			yourself.

	I wonder about the '+' here.  Shades of the dbase II days.
	(there never was a dbase-one).

> 	Would you have a problem with me releasing a product under
> that name? It would be Apache 1.0.0 with SSLeay, RSAREF, Ben's
> patches, my mods to his patches, and my additional extensions to make
> Apache/SSL easy to use/install/etc.

If your extensions are to the *.c files then you're modifying the
source and creating your own source tree.  If you're adding a bunch of
funky CGI scripts then you're not modifying Apache at all, just putting
it in a more friendly and sensible wrapping for your customers.

> If you have any better ideas for a
> name that would be appreciated. I'd like to make it obvious that this
> isn't an official apache group project, but I can't call it something
> other than 'apache'.

Why can't you call it anything other than Apache?  It is *clearly* going
to confuse people - your customers.

As ever, the bottom line is that you call it what you want.  My advice
is to call it something like:

	Apache-Encrypt/0.0.1		(pick a version to taste)

or if you're really brave (and commercially it may prove the only
viable option...)

	Encrypt/0.0.1

>	My other question is do you have a problem with my modifiying
> the pb_apache graphic to say Apache/SSL ?

Choose your name wisely.  You may come to regret too close an
association with all things Apache, though hopefully not.  ;)

I confess that yes, I personally *do* have a problem with your using
the Apache logo, for the same reasons I have indicated above.  Your
product is *NOT* Apache, any more than Apache is NCSA 1.3.

> I also noticed that in related_projects, it says that the apache/ssl
> is free for noncommercial and commercial use. You probably want to
> change that to say free for non-commercial/commercial use *outside the
> us*., as RSADSI and Cylink's patents are (hopefully not for much
> longer) valid within the US.

Heh, that's my page, damn, I can't do anything right.  Thanks, I'll
change the words immediately. ;)

Cheers,
Ay.



Mime
View raw message