httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Apache 2000, err Apache 2.0 gets real
Date Sun, 01 Aug 1999 19:08:23 GMT
"Ralf S. Engelschall" wrote:
> 
> In article <37A46956.BACB866D@algroup.co.uk> you wrote:
> > "Ralf S. Engelschall" wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > Hmm. So what you are saying is that you took ASF scripts, bundled them
> > together and relicensed them as a GNU tool. Isn't that a breach of the
> > licence?
> 
> Ben, please stop this: I've more than once said clearly that GNU shtool is not
> a bundling of ASF code and when you would not always just try to blame my
> person you would recognize this! 

I'm merely responding to what you said:

"> Not at all. It's just that the helpers scripts represent a lot
> of work and could be useful for other projects. It would be
> nice for Apache to provide that as another ASF "project".

Ok, but GNU shtool was born exactly out of this reason when you
remember.
_Because_ the scripts were useful for other projects. And by bundling
them
together in the stand-alone shtool package this goal was now already
achieved."

if that's not what you mean, then don't say it.

> From where do you think half of src/helpers/
> came from?

That's the point. I don't care where they came from. They came from the
Apache Group. Isn't that enough? In fact, I wrote some of them, too, but
I've never even bothered to correct people who claim otherwise.

>  From RSE and so I've not bundled ASF code when I created GNU
> shtool out of my master scripts I've partly already written years before. Only
> sh.guessos is derived from "ASF code" and a few lines in shtool's sh.path were
> inspired by Jim's PrintPath. So _PLEASE_ stop to blaming me for things I've
> not done.

But you've just said you _have_ done them. Again. I'll quote, in case
you've forgotten: 'sh.guessos is derived from "ASF code"'.

> We wanted to discuss _TECHNICAL_ reasons why Jim don't wants to use
> shtool and not again start the old politics.
> 
> > And now you are suggesting we should take our own code back under a
> > licence we don't use because using our own code under our own licence is
> > "reinventing the wheel". Somehow I feel like I've suddenly landed on an
> > alien planet.
> 
> Oh Ben, oh Ben... I don't know what makes you thinking such strongly that the
> ingredients of GNU shtool is ASF code, but at least from your words I really
> know why I'm still have great problems to feel like a real part of the ASF and
> why I don't work on Apache 2.0...  :-( It no longer is fun to always get
> blamed this way. I've talked to _Jim_ about _his_ reasons and instead _you_
> blame me. Seems like your reply was just fun for you, because you generally
> like it to blame RSE. Please don't do this. I'm not your personal punchball.

Some of the code is ours, as you have said. You've given the impression
it all is. You've also said "the functionality of shtool is mainly a
subset of them" (i.e. the helper scripts). You give, therefore, the
strong impression that the sole reason you think we should use shtool is
because it has your name on it. This constant tracking of which bits you
did and total disregard for the contribution of others is driving me
nuts. It also creates a rather large target, which is probably why
punches keep landing on it.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi

Mime
View raw message