httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Apache legal question
Date Tue, 14 May 1996 09:34:08 GMT
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Hmmm, except Sameer's should be "Apache/1.0.5 Ben-SSL/0.2 Sameer-SSL/1.1".

Would you object to "Apache/1.0.5 Apache-SSL/0.2"?

BTW, you say the Server field is "supposed" to be in this format - where does
it say that?

> 
> 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.

I'm happy to conform to standards when they exist. It would be good if people
pointed them out _before_ they got "really sick", though  ;-)

Cheers,

Ben.

> 
> 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.
> 
> .....Roy

-- 
Ben Laurie                  Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435
Freelance Consultant and    Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director          Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
A.L. Digital Ltd,           URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk
London, England.

Mime
View raw message