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 Mon, 06 May 1996 20:18:32 GMT liltingly intones:
> 	I don't think it is a question of objections it is a question
> of what is best for everyone involved.
OK, that sounds reasonable, even to me. 8^)

> 	If "Apache-SSL-US" defined "Apache-SSL with RSAREF" then your
> suggestion makes sense. I actually would say that "Apache-SSL-US"
> defines "Apache-SSL with C2 extensions/modifications". Cygnus releases
> of Apache-SSL, Apache-SSL-US can all have the -inet-0.9 appended.
> 	My problem with this is that the "standard" version strings
> for HTTP servers is ServerName/ServerVersion. Doing that "inet" after
> the "/" means that part of the "ServerName" becomes part of
> "ServerVersion". Unless you consider "inet" to be part of
> ServerVersion, which is a reasonable way to look at things.
Well, that's the crux of the matter. If Cygnus builds from standard
release code, making no changes other than version number, then -inet
should be in ServerVersion. If not, and they customize further, then
ServerName needs to change, as well as ServerVersion. This is what
Apache-SSL-US full ServerName/ServerVersion means, and what we'd like
Cygnus to do. OK so far?

Then, suppose Cygnus applies patches or does CVS checkouts for maintenance
releases of their own (from the Apache source tree). As Gordon puts it,
this would get incrementing Cygnus version numbers, still maintaining the
base Apache version number, unless that changed along the way too. Example:

Apache/1.0.3-inet-0.9		<-- assumes something significant got
				    fixed by us here
Apache/1.0.4			8^(

And in parallel, Cygnus could offer



It sounds like this works, to me. Things only get sticky if Cygnus starts
to do independent Apache development, and then if I understand correctly,
ServerName would have to change, or Cygnus changes would have to fold back
into the main Apache development branch. So far, Gordon hasn't indicated
that Cygnus is interested in doing this:

"Cygnus intends to use the same sources as the Apache Group, and would
like to use the same name for the web server binaries we ship."

I'm used to local installs where the site actually appends a build ID,
possibly including chars, like Apache/1.0.5-gvl-1.0, which is probably
why I'm OK with what Gordon suggests. Here at N2K, policy is not to mess
with the base version number, unless our own development work veers way
off the beaten path. So, we don't change the Apache version string.

Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA
And now, on a lighter note:
Wasting time is an important part of living.

View raw message