httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Subject Re: Apache legal question
Date Tue, 14 May 1996 08:22:00 GMT
> I'm inclined to agree, though I don't think the naming question can be fairly
> described as a wrangle - more of an academic discussion. If it makes Cygnus'
> life easier to call it Apache/1.0.5-inet-0.9 then I really can't see a problem
> with that, though I am inclined to agree with those who say that uniformity of
> derived versions is a Good Thing. I've just changed the Apache-SSL numbering
> scheme with this in mind (latest version is Apache-SSL/1.0.5+1.0 - i.e. 1.0.5
> of Apache, 1.0 of -SSL patches). Strictly speaking this means that Sameer
> should call his version Apache-SSL-US/1.0.5+1.0+a.b.c where a.b.c is Sameer's
> patchlevel. So, in an ideal world, I'd like to see Cygnus' version called
> Apache-Cygnus/1.0.5+0.9 but it really isn't a big deal. I'd still like them to
> call the product Apache, just the version would be Apache-Cygnus.

The Server field is supposed to be a list of product/version tokens,
so I'd really appreciate it if all of you (SSL-ites included) would
use it as such.  That means

    Apache/1.0.5 Cygnus-Inet/0.9
    Apache/1.0.5 Ben-SSL/0.2
    Apache/1.0.5 Sameer-SSL/1.1

is what I would like to see (aside from better names for Ben-SSL and
Sameer-SSL -- sorry I haven't kept up on the actual product names)
when the Netcraft survey shows them.

The only time this isn't true is when the "new" product is more
significant than Apache (i.e., is considered a different server),
at which point it would become

    Cygnus-Inet/99.2 Apache/1.0.5

for example.

I am quite serious about this.  Obviously, I can't force anyone to
change their code, but I am really sick of the Apache-SSL-garbage
where it doesn't belong.

And, BTW, Brian is indeed capable of signing something on behalf of
the Apache Group provided that he posts to the list first (and he did).
The fact that AG is not a legal entity does not change its existance
under common law (i.e., any one of us can represent the opinion of a
group of people, provided that the group of people has an opinion to
represent, and our voting rules gives us that).

+1 on setting up a real non-profit org. and seeking sponsors -- it
would be worth it just to reduce the e-mail on organizational issues.


View raw message