From: Lucid <lucid@the.secret.org>
Message-Id: <199609092323.TAA06946@the.secret.org>
Subject: Re: Configur{e,ation} changes
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:23:08 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <199609092229.SAA22289@synergy.ai.mit.edu> from "Robert S. Thau"
 at Sep 9, 96 06:29:19 pm
Content-Type: text
ReSent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
ReSent-From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@hyperreal.com>
ReSent-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
ReSent-Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.960916213705.18303E@taz.hyperreal.com>
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

> 
> In any case, to reiterate, this is less a legal issue than a moral one
> (two separate sorts of things which Americans confuse too much) ---
> out of consideration for the people who developed autoconf, we just
> should not be using their code in a manner which we have reason to
> believe they would find objectionable.  Of course, they very well
> might not object, but in case of doubt, it's better to ask than to
> release something questionable *without* asking and find ourselves
> pilloried for doing it.
> 
> rst
> 

I totally agree here, while the GPL license virus sucks, it is
the right of the programmer to pick the details of their license
and as a user of free software it is your obligation to follow the
spirit of it.

I think we should just ask them if they mind.

People ask us about selling "value-added" versions of apache
we, surprisingly to some, usually seem to say yes.

If they do mind, we should just write our own... If it really matters that much.

I am working on a java based configTool/Server for apache
after I finish it, maybe support for a graphical makeTool could be added,
"Please *click* on the modules you would like support for..."  ;-)

or maybe working graveyard shift is damaging me more then I thought...

-bill