httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: restructuring mod_ssl as an overlay
Date Wed, 07 Jun 2006 20:53:51 GMT
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> 
>>I think the best way to accomplish that is to separate mod_ssl into a
>>subproject that is capable of producing overlay releases for each
>>release of httpd. 
> 
> yuck! -1

Before we take -any- action, we need to have one policy across the ASF.
Our research hopefully contributes substantially to that policy.  But
we can't enable per-project balkanization when it comes to complying
with US law.

As I've said, I'm ok with two seperate (full) tarballs, e.g. two (full)
corresponding binary distributions;  I'm ok with a core tarball and an
add-on crypto component.  I'm not really ok with the status quo as there
is no way to not download crypto in a restricted jurisdiction if one wants
httpd, unless some party has retarred the release for us sans mod_ssl.

There's another gray point, without OpenSSL, mod_ssl is a noop, that is,
it does no crypto.  There is more crypto in mod_auth_digest, util_md5 or
in apr-util than there is in mod_ssl.

> Is the mere legal registration of the ASF within US borders a solid
> stumbling block here? As in, could the situation be remedied by
> forbiding US-based distributors? (Similar to what Debian used to do with
> it's non-US repositories).

Dude, we are a Deleware, US foundation.

Mime
View raw message