httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>
Subject Re: Announce: NTLM authentication module
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2000 19:43:30 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bill Stoddard wrote:

> 
> > On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > > From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 9:21 AM
> > > >
> > > > > This is a normal apache module, with small parts of the samba code.
> > > >
> > > > This detail effectively kills the possibility of including
> > > > this module in the standard
> > > > Apache distribution since Samba is GPLed.
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > >
> > > In that case... wall me out.  I've not looked at the code, and
> > > am not familiar with Samba, so if you email the code that is not
> > > based on Samba, I will fill in the code with the appropriate APR,
> > > if this is realistic.
> > >
> > > OtherBill
> >
> > Depending on how much Samba code is needed, might it not be better to
> > either (a) Ask the Samba ppl if we could include the functions needed
> > under the Apache license, or (b) make it link against the appropriate bits
> > of Samba?
> 
> I don't think (a) is necessarily that simple. If Samba were written by
> one person, then that person could do whatever he wanted with the
> code, but since Samba is written by many, it becomes more of a
> problem. Everyone who ever donated to the code base would have to
> 'agree'. Fat chance, even if it were possible to indentify everyone.  
> Linking does not eliminate the GPL virual effects.

Damn. I forgot about that aspect - I must have been thinking of LGPL :-(

Having said that, I've seen authenticators (for Squid) which use Samba in
a similar way, keeping it external (thus not "infected" by the GPL).

Alternatively, I suppose it will have to remain a separate distribution,
covered by the GPL? :-(


James.


Mime
View raw message