httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: 1.3.15
Date Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:47:51 GMT

In a message dated 00-10-24 11:37:08 EDT, Roy writes...

> > Obviously Apache has not ever been fully 'up to speed' on this section
>  > particuarly regarding all the 'Server SHOULD' RFC directives which
>  > means there is only 'conditional compliance' and not 'full compliance.
>  > I've never seen a 406 from Apache 1.x. even when it SHOULD have been 
>  It isn't that simple.  Sending a 406 is only correct if the requested
>  resource is negotiable in format, which depends on the URL used.  What
>  we should be doing (and this is a known issue) is modify the media
>  type sent in content-type based on the accept-encoding field.  The
>  reason we don't do that is because it adds a certain randomness to
>  cache behavior.

I hear you. An awful lot of work needs to be done in this area and
I didn't say it would be simple.. I just wanted to know if the 1.3.x
tree was still open to at least trying to improve the situation.

>  > If patches were submitted to change the 'conditional' to 'full 
>  > would they be accepted?
>  It depends on whether the rest of the patch sucked or not.  Rather than
>  have a pointless discussion about what might happen, just post the patch.

It's not pointless to try and make an attempt to discover if a lot
of work will all be for nothing if there's no chance it would even
be looked at. That's all I was going for... was a 'feel' for whether
or not it would be a waste of time. I guess it's a big maybe.
Ok... I'll finish what I have and send it.

>  > - Free Enhanced 
>  > - Free Apache 
>  > Acceleration module
>  While you are at it, please read our distribution license.  It expressly
>  forbids modifying our code and redistributing it with "Apache" in the
>  name without permission from the Apache Software Foundation.
>  ....Roy

We are not 're-distributing' your code.

I posted the enhancements to Apache Bench and even the new
mod_gzip code to the forum in the hopes that someone would
want/need the code and all I got was a message back telling me
not to attach large things to emails. I was told specifically that
the preferred method was to 'put it on a website somewhere and
just tell people where it is'.

So I did. That's all there is to it.
I can reproduce the exact emails that instructed me to do
that very thing, if you wish. I think it was Manoj.

All of the code has your license on it, with no mention or even
any claim that it is 'ours'. We are complying with every bit
of your license and I really don't know where you are coming
from with this. We are trying to contribute to an open software
project that is supposed to be available to anyone who
wants to do so... then suddenly you come out of nowhere
and start giving us static? We are out here trying to promote
your products and help YOUR customers and, when we
can, make a contribution back to the project. Cut us a break.

Should William Rowe take down his own websites where 
he has 'your' code freely available and web pages to help
people do that? I have been to his site many times to 'get'
things regarding Win32 patches and updates and things.
I appreciate the time he took to bring the pages up and
I've gotten some really useful info there.

If you recall, Roy, you and I had a long 'offline' private 
discussion back in December or so about 'when/how/where' 
it was appropriate to actually and actively 'redistribute' Apache 
and you yourself gave RCI, as a company, permission to do so. 

It was in writing. I still have it. 

We are not even doing anything that would vaugely resemble '
distribution' but your email pretty much said that even if we 
started buring some CD's or something you wouldn't have a 
problem with it so long as we never claimed to have written
the code and that the name 'Apache' was not silkscreened
onto the CD's or something.  

Is that the 'written' permission you are speaking of?.. or 
do we need to submit another official request?
We still have no plans to 'redistribute' your product but
if we need to do something we haven't just to try and
offer up some helpful code then please tell us what the
official procedure is and we'll do it. We have plenty of
lawyers at our disposal if it all needs to get that 'official'
but I can't imagine why it would have to. Just tell us
what you want.

By the way... as of 9:00 PM last night there is now an
even better version of mod_gzip that can now compress
all static and DYNAMIC output from directly within the
Apache Web Server and it is free for you to have at
the mod_gzip home page... which still only exists 
because that's where I was told to post the code.

It was coded against the 1.3.x tree and it can compress
ALL of the output from Apache including all CGI from
within the confines of your standad 1.3 module interface.

We do not consider it to he 'ours'... it is 'yours' and is
totally free for you and your users, if you want it.

It is my desire that someone at Apache review it and
consider it for adoption into at least the /src/modules/experimental
part of the tree since it's a VERY useful enhancement to 
Apache. Peformance increase is in the 2-300 percent range
for delivery of content.

Kevin Kiley
CTO, Remote Communications, Inc. - Free IETF Encoding Server - Free Enhanced ApacheBench - Free Apache Content 
Acceleration module

View raw message