httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: sponsorship of
Date Sat, 02 Dec 1995 00:39:44 GMT
On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Andrew wrote:
> If the project needs to relocate to another place, for whatever reason, 
> and that place is not under organic's jurisdiction then preseumably this 
> brings into question the status of any sponsorship contract that the 
> company has entered into.  There may be a conflict of interest between 
> what's right for the project (howsoever that is perceived) and what is 
> right for organic [sorry, I don't know what brian's organisation's real 
> name is, clueless as ever; correct me if I'm wrong].

I understand that concern.  Say if the demand from work (Organic 
Online) forces me and Cliff to drop our work with Apache, what then?  
Or if the bandwidth consumed by Apache becomes financially impossible for 
Organic to support, then what?  I would like to think that the machine 
(Hyperreal) or the Apache project itself has enough street cred to be 
able to be transplanted to another jurisdiction.  And in that case, what 
happens to the machine and the sponsorship?  

As I said, I understand those concerns, and will bring them up in the
discussion with this company.  If Organic felt like it needed to gain by
association with Apache, it would have demanded a home page link in exchange
for the bandwidth, power, and systems administration resources consumed - we
don't.  So, I would have no problem if the sponsorship contract had no 
mention of Organic Online at all - this would be solely between the 
Apache Group (with my name, or Cliff's name, on as the responsible party) 
and the company.  I would expect, if Cliff or I had to drop out of that 
position (not likely at all), we would be able to pass it along to 
another party.

> Whichever hardware/software company it may be (it isn't difficult to 
> guess, frankly) there still remains the fact that Apache is intentionally 
> a product able to perform well on a wide variety of hardware/software 
> platforms, and - to date - has not been made to favour a specific 
> hardware/software combination.  Future incarnations of Apache may feature 
> functionality which is difficult to replicate on as wide a range of 
> platforms as are currently supported (multithreading springs to mind) 
> Any efforts focused upon supporting these functions may detract from a 
> wider goal of bringing an efficient implementation to as many people as 
> possible, and in a cost effective way; so not requiring exotic hardware and 
> software.  Here there resides another possible conflict of interest 
> [*absolutely*, *positively*, *NOTHING*, is ever free on the internet]; 
> the sponsor may prefer that work is not done which might impact upon 
> their market lead.

The contract would be for a significant period of time (several months), 
with significant warning if sponsorship were to be pulled, in which case 
we would go back to my Pentium or to a competitor's sponsorship.  :)  
Thus, the threat of sponsorship withdrawl is not a concern of mine.  
I would understand if the company were donating engineers to the project 
that they would not have these engineers working on a competitor's port, 
but that's a different issue.  I am personally committed to seeing Apache 
working blazingly fast on as many platforms as possible, and I won't let 
this company get in the way of that.

More mail to comment on... cool...


--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

View raw message