httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <...@engelschall.com>
Subject Re: Suggestion: shtool
Date Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:11:25 GMT

In article <199904232155.RAA27406@devsys.jaguNET.com> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>> 
>> But _all_ other scripts were written originally by me and just ported over to
>> Apache for APACI one year ago. I've not even overtaken your new getuid.sh or
>> our PrintPath, Jim! So I'm a little bit surprised why you feel such
>> uncomfortable with shtool. Only 10% of it is from the Apache Group and this
>> 10% get explicit credit and fulfill the requirements of the Apache license
>> AFAIK. 
>> 
>> Hmmm... are you really sure you've looked at the various *.sh scripts of
>> shtool in detail, Jim?
> 
> Yes, I have.
> 
> The reason I feel uncomfortable is for the reasons I mentioned. Although
> originally written by you for APACI, and Apache, I'm sure others have
> made changes.

Hmmm... I find it rather silly to have to discuss such peanuts, but when it's
requested. Especially because I just wanted to post a suggestion and now find
myself here discussing licensing/derivation issues.

1. shtool shares only the following scripts (not really the version of them,
   but the script) with Apache's src/helpers/*:

        buildinfo.sh
        checkheader.sh
        findcpp.sh
        GuessOS
        install.sh
        mkdir.sh
        mkshadow.sh
        slo.sh

   Except for GuessOS all of them were written (or for mkdir.sh and install.sh
   cleaned and enhanced) by me and contributed to the Apache project because
   of APACI in April 1998. Some of them (mkshadow.sh, mkdir.sh, install.sh and
   buildinfo.sh were already written for other packages like ePerl, WML,
   etc.). Only slo.sh and findcpp.sh were initially written for Apache by me.

2. Now count the actual changes "others have made in the AG" by observing "cvs
   log" on them:
  
        buildinfo.sh
        checkheader.sh
        findcpp.sh
        mkdir.sh
        mkshadow.sh
        slo.sh
             -> Only style changes, mainly . -> x, add license info

        install.sh
             -> Only -S option from Wilfredo Sanchez, anything else again was
                Only style changes, mainly . -> x, add license info

   Because shtool is not even based on the latest Apache CVS versions of the
   scripts, not even the style changes you've made were overtaken by shtool.
   So you actually speak only about a trivial three line patch to install.sh
   and the (non-trivial, of course) GuessOS script where some non-RSE changes
   exists. In other words: GuessOS is the only script of shtool which actually
   contains real things not from RSE. And for GuessOS the proper license
   conditions are fulfilled AFAIK.  So I find it totally exaggerated to speak
   as I would have robbed something from the AG and placed it under my name.

3. The APACI scripts are based on versions from April 1998.  The shtool is
   directly assembled out of my master versions and this way not even contain
   the stylistic changes of the AG.
   
> AFAIK, since it was written for APACI and for Apache, it's really
> 100% from AG, isn't it? Isn't that the whole idea behind a group
> developed package?
> 
> Anyway, that's my impression.

Wait! I'm confused. Only slo.sh and findcpp.sh where initially written for
Apache. The other stuff already existed long time before APACI was born. And
when I write something and just contribute it to a project this doesn't mean
that I lost the copyright or control at all, doesn't it? I loose
it only on the contributed version. AFAIK there is no reasons why I can't
contribute it again to another package (shtool) under a different license.
When I contribute something to the Apache project it just means that _THIS_
version I contribute is gifted to the project and now stays under the Apache
license and people can use this version under the Apache license, because this
version is now owned by the AG. But that doesn't mean that the AG now has an
exclusive right on the stuff at all and I've to burn all previous versions
which aren't staying under the Apache license.

I must say that I'm a little bit annoyed by those discussions and they make me
not really happy and increasemy motivation to work for the AG (or ASF)... :-(

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Mime
View raw message