httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Justin Erenkrantz" <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: restructuring mod_ssl as an overlay
Date Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:13:11 GMT
On 6/8/06, Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com> wrote:
> Thanks for doing the research, Roy.

Ditto.

> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:03:33PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > Okay, let me put it in a different way.  The alternatives are
> >
> >  1) retain the status quo, forbid distributing ssl binaries, and
> > include in our documentation that people in banned countries are not
> > allowed to download httpd 2.x.
>
> This gets my vote.  I don't see why it's necessary for the ASF to be in
> the business of distributing binaries; letting other people assume the
> technical and legal responsibilites for doing that seems reasonable.
>
> The documentation work necessary would be greater if mod_ssl is split
> into a separate package, and having mod_ssl in the tree is one of the
> compelling features of 2.x anyway.

Overall, I think forbidding the distribution of the SSL-enabled
binaries is probably the sanest thing technically and legally for us
to do.  I understand the arguments about the Win32 folks not having
SSL out of the box, but I don't think that particular advantage
outweighs the social and technical problems with creating two separate
versions of the distributions.

So, +1 to keeping the status quo (always my favorite!).  -- justin

Mime
View raw message