httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Fielding, Roy" <field...@eBuilt.com>
Subject RE: 1.3.15
Date Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:26:48 GMT
> >  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.

That's an odd statement.  I am assuming you are aware of copyright
law and that providing a copy of an intellectual work upon a website
is generally called "redistribution".

> 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.

Please, don't play this game.  We both know the difference between
providing a pointer to a project forum and publishing a web page on
the same day as an RCI press release and article insertion on another
website.  Let's just act like adults.

> 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.

I did.  The formal response to such an action would be for me to call
up our lawyer and have them send you a cease and desist order.  Instead,
I assumed it was just a mistake and asked you to correct it.  Thank
you for correcting it.  I have had similar conversations with many other
companies, though most of the others have asked us first in private
before publication.

> 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.

I've never seen Bill's website, so I don't know.  If it contains stuff
that has not been officially incorporated into Apache httpd and refers
to that stuff as if it were coming from Apache, then yes I would ask
him to remove it.  That is, for example, why none of the ASF members
has the Apache feather or httpd project logo on their home pages.

> 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. 

Good.  Read it.  I still know what I wrote, and it does not allow
anyone to distribute modified code with "Apache" appearing within
the product name or in a possessive sense that would make it appear
as if it were approved for distribution by the ASF.

> 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.  

That isn't what I said in the note.  If you still have it, quote
me directly rather than offering an obvious misinterpretation.

> 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.

The reason why it has to be official is because RCI claims to have
"patent pending" rights to a technology related to this module.
I'll post a pointer to the license grant form just as soon as I can
commit them to our website (my commit access is broken right now
due to a laptop config problem).  It is the same form as the one
used by IBM to contribute several chunks of code, which currently
appears in our board minutes, but really belongs in a more visible
location -- I've been putting off an ASF web makeover for too long.

> 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.

Fine.  Just to be clear, I have no problem with you distributing
mod_gzip from the RCI website (though I have no idea what the gzip
folks think about using their name in a module).  The only problem
is that no code, from any source (including me), can be called Apache
something until the developers on this forum with voting rights makes
it so and it is released as one of our products.  The solution is
just to avoid making it look like an Apache product.

> 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.

Great,

....Roy

p.s. Sorry for the delay in responding -- I didn't have mail access
     last week while touristing in London after ApacheCon.

Mime
View raw message