Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <3D4EBF0C.3090103@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 11:08:12 -0700
From: Brian Pane <brianp@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020722
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
References: <006501c23caa$9fe1fdd0$4800000a@KOJ>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ryan Bloom wrote:

>>From: Ian Holsman [mailto:ianh@apache.org]
>>
>>Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>This is actually WHY I brought up the question to begin with.  I
>>>      
>>>
>hadn't
>  
>
>>>planned to be involved with the discussion, but I did read the
>>>State-Threads MPM FAQ.  From the FAQ:
>>>
>>>
>>>12. Will the ASF adopt the patches?
>>>
>>>We contributed the patches to the Apache Software Foundation but the
>>>      
>>>
>ASF
>  
>
>>>has refused to include the patches in future releases of Apache/1.3
>>>      
>>>
>or
>  
>
>>>2.0, citing "unnecessary" typecasts and complication associated with
>>>      
>>>
>the
>  
>
>>>warning-free 64-bit port, and incompatible license terms with the
>>>state-threaded MPM.
>>>
>>>This means that the original author knew about the licensing issues,
>>>      
>>>
>and
>  
>
>>>he has chosen NOT to re-license.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>That's being a bit hard Ryan.
>>
>>the library is based on NSPR, and would involve some work to remove
>>    
>>
>it.
>
>How is that being hard at all?  The author has chosen not to re-license.
>He has perfectly valid technical reasons for not re-licensing, but it is
>still a decision that has been made.
>  
>

Was that a conscious decision on the part of the author?  I.e.,
did we ask him to consider re-licensing, which he rejected?  Or
was the possibility never explicitly discussed?

--Brian