httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: incorporating? (was: Copyright & donating code)
Date Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:58:26 GMT wrote:
> It was NEWS to me that Apache was about go 'corporate'. Even if it's 
> 'not for profit' it doesn't take a rocket scentist to realize that
> it's bound to change SOMETHING about the way Apache works...
> and that's NEWS for those of us who make plans about whether
> or not we want to use your product.

"Going corporate" and "setting up a corporation to protect and foster
what we are doing" are 2 totally different things. It's a matter of

> I have a news flash for you all. Most people don't use Apache because
> it's 'kick-ass' software. Usually the only ass it kicks is your own when
> you weed through the piss-poor documentation and then get beat
> up on user-groups and you still aren't sure how it works.
> No... people use it because it's FREE and ( for a long time ) it was
> the ONLY thing that even worked. You can get used to Malaria.

I would think that, yes, there are a number who use it because it's
free. I would further suggest that that number is very, very small
compared to those who use it because it's better than anything else.

> Now all of a sudden we are told that 'Apache is changing'.
> Some of the thread says 'it's changing but it won't change'.

All the people who are in AG are saying it won't change. It's only
one or two people, not associated with Apache (and seemingly very
ignorant of how AG works) who says "It's changing! The sky is falling."

> What does that mean?

I'm sure there's some real concern about Apache. I think that, when you
get down to it, _everything_ that's been posted by members of AG have
been to ASSURE people that things will stay the same. It certainly
appeared that Mr. Cranston's point of view had an ulterior motive...

I guess it boils down to this. When we explicitely state exactly WHY
Apache needs a NPO in order to allow the project to continue as is,
and we state that nothing will change, _do you trust us_? Are people
so cynical that they simply can't believe what we are saying? If so,
then it's a sad time...

> Points that really need to be answered before thread dies...
> 1. Will this incorporation be 'for profit' or 'not for profit'?

This has been answered many, many times. It's non-profit.

> 2. If 'not for profit' then will Apache have a TAX ID NUMBER and can
>     we all at least get a TAX BREAK if we donate time, money or
>     code to 'The Apache Foundation'? That will be COOL!

One reason, again as stated many, many times, for being a NPO would
be to allow for charitable contributions. But that is NOT a prime

You see, NO ONE in AG gets paid ANYTHING by AG to work on Apache.
Nothing. _We_ don't even get any sort of charitable deduction junk
or anything like that. It's pure volunteer. It is NOT the goal of
becoming a NPO to, all of a sudden, allow people to start claiming
charitable contributions. If anything THAT would change the face
of Apache. Instead of being submitting patches as a volunteer
effort, instead we'd having people sending in 1 line code changes
so they could claim a deduction on their 1040. Hopefully, it's
obvious how this would change Apache.

> 3. WHEN is this supposed to happen? EXACTLY WHEN?
>     Before 2.0? After 2.0? During 2.0?

Soon. Before 2.0.

> People who use your product really deserve to know.

I don't know how to respond to that... On one hand, I guess they "do"
deserve to know. On the other hand, I kind of feel like the guy who
stops to help a little old lady change her flat tire and she says "Hey!
Use a torque wrench on those nuts!". Apache is totally free. None
of the people in AG get ANYTHING directly from their totally volunteer
Apache work. People get to use Apache and can change it any way they
want. Where does this concept of "deserve" come into it? Maybe I'm just
reading that sentence wrong... 

   Jim Jagielski   |||   |||
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

View raw message