Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "Peter J. Cranstone" <cranstone@remotecommunications.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:25:54 -0600
Message-ID: <559F81690C371C40A769F8591A0DA62006E53E@es1.ehyperspace.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <559F81690C371C40A769F8591A0DA62007367C@es1.ehyperspace.com>
Importance: Normal

Guys,

Conversation is over. I have nothing more to add. This whole
conversation is degenerating into meaningless nonsense. 

Someone else can carry the thread.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Eibner [mailto:thomas@stderr.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:21 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0


Okay, I'll bite.

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
[Snip: nothing that hasn't been said in this thread before]
>
> If it's not technical, then it's social (you just plain don't like 
> us... Not a problem) or political (the powers that be don't like us...

> Again not a problem)
> 
> >From a political standpoint I'm pissed that Covalent Technologies can
> cut a deal with Compaq for the new Compaq Apache server (wonder if it 
> will ship with or without compression (details are tough to find on 
> this whole deal). But you know what, more power to Ryan and his crew 
> for doing something like that. Did I ever see a vote for something 
> like that, no... I even checked the ASF minutes... Nothing since 
> February. Whatever.

Why are you dragging this into the discussion? I can't see that it has
anything to do with it. Anyone else seeing this as a bad thing for 
Apache?

I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do this, anyone should be
able to do this, even your company. But do you have the expertise?

Looking at the License of Apache it doesn't make it sound like they
wouldn't be able to do so, as long as they state like written in the
license: "This product includes software developed by the Apache Group
for use in the Apache HTTP server project (http://www.apache.org/)."
Which I am quite sure they will, Covalent will probably use every chance
they get to promote Apache.

The reason why there might not be more information on this deal than
what Covalents website gives[1] might be that the rest is to be worked
out?

When I heard this I was kind of happy for Apache, 'cause it can only be
a good thing if Covalent gets a deal like this. More money, more likely
that Ryan, Randy, Dough, William, etc. will keep up their very good work
on Apache.

my $cent = 2;

[1] http://www.covalent.net/company/press/news-20010828.php

-- 
  Thomas Eibner