httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Colm MacCarthaigh <>
Subject Re: patched sources v.s. release candidates
Date Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:25:15 GMT
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 03:05:14PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> You specifically mentioned how many distros have patched sources, and
> that's true (and not an issue).  What I asked was, are there distros which
> ship our release candidates before they are released, and if so, are they
> labeled as such?

I've had ports trees that carried odd-numbered trains, (2.1, 2.3), and
even yesterdays-svn (from nightly builds)!

> > Our candidates are 100% redistributable and licensed in accordance with
> > AL2.0, just like our svn trees.
> So you can make anything out of any combination of our svn trees, with
> whatever patches you like, as long as you give them your own name.  Right?
> They are not, for example, a "release 2.2.5" until the project approves them.

Yes, and to repeat again; as long as it is made clear that it is not an
ASF release :-)

> E.g. I might have a binary "BetterScript, based on PHP sources 5.2.4 RC2",
> but I better not ship that as *the* "PHP 5.2.4".  Do we agree on this,
> or not?  Or are we in the mode of playing devil's advocate to spend list
> bandwidth?  (Sometimes I don't know with you, Colm :-)

I'm not trying to split hairs, but the tarballs we create as RCs are
licensed AL2.0 , and there's no way we can change that. That's all I
mean, third parties can take those tarballs and redistribute them as
they wish - as long as they take all of the precautions and steps
redistributors usually should.

I'm told it would be a bad idea for them to mis-represent things by
claiming it was an ASF release, what kind of naming practises that
translates into is probably best consulted with a lawyer :/

> I'd hate to find the RC process closed, as Jim's suggested, because of
> misunderstandings about this subtle difference of opinion.  The only
> thing we lose is quality of our releases.

This is not some subtle difference of opinion. You said;

"Without an announce, /dev/ tarball build doesn't belong on any external

This is simply at odds with the AL2.0, so I'm saying the complete
opposite. I don't think that's subtle :-) /dev/ tarballs *are*
re-distributable, it says so right there in them, and this is
irrevokably the case. 

Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key:

View raw message