httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <>
Subject Re: Apache legal question
Date Sun, 05 May 1996 22:01:39 GMT
Gordon Irlam liltingly intones:
> > > with Apache.  Sometimes though, there is a need to differentiate.  To
> > > handle this we plan to modify our Apache version string by appending a
> > > Cygnus specific identifier (Eg. "Apache/1.0.5-inet-0.9").
> > 
> > 	I think it would be a good idea to standardize on this and
> > follow the Apache-SSL, Apache-SSL-US model.
> > 
> > I'm using "Apache-SSL-US/1.0.5+1.1.1b1" for my version strings.
> > Cygnus could use "Apache-Cygnus/1.0.5+0.9" 
> One of our product requirments is that each application support
> a -v flag.  We would very much like to have this flag to have a
> consistent behavior across all applications we ship.

Gordon, Apache already has -v: [httpd] 81% ./httpd -v
Server version Apache/1.1b2.

Since anyone who has Apache source (what, 31% at last count 8^)
can make the version string abolutely anything they like, my $0.02
is that I'd have no objections to this request. I'd think that
this is actually consistent with Sameer's model, since SSL and SSL-US
are protocol stack specific enhancements, and -inet is a repackager

Sameer, would Apache-SSL-US/1.0.5-c2-1.1.1b1 

look reasonable to you? I'm *certainly* not suggesting that you change
your IDs, but rather I'm pointing out that we may be talking about two
slightly different pieces of the version string here. Right now, it
seems that Apache-SSL-US/1.0.5+1.1.1b1 is a completely unique version
for your stuff.

Remember, we've already got VApache, Apache-Neoscript, Apache-IO,
ElectricMail-Apache, ApAcHe, Apache_rus, and who knnows what else
out there.

Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA
And now, on a lighter note:
Love at first sight is one of the greatest labor-saving devices the
world has ever seen.

View raw message