httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <>
Subject Re: mod_fcgid incubation?
Date Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:29:49 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Chris Darroch wrote:
>>>  One key question I have (jumping ahead a little) is whether
>>> everyone who has contributed a patch to the project needs to contacted
>>> and a signed contributor agreement recovered from them.  If not, then I
>>> would think that we'd just need a CLA from Pan Qingfeng to proceed
>>> (and perhaps, in that case, we could skip the incubator stage, as
>>> Apache ZooKeeper recently did).
>>>  If we do need CLAs from all patch contributors, that might take
>>> more time.  Fortunately, there's a good change log for the project
>>> with names and email addresses; it includes some of the usual suspects
>>> (like Paul Querna and myself) but also a number of other folks we'd need
>>> to track down.
>> Since the orig code is GPL, then when people submitted the patches,
>> the expectation is that they would also be GPL. As such, for us
>> to be able to fold in the code, we would need iCLAs from everyone
>> who submitted a patch allowing us to relicense their bits as AL instead
>> of GPL... similar to what we needed to do when SpamAssassin come on board.
> Is it?

It is.  AFAIK, mod_fcgid is a clean room implementation of the FastCGI 
protocol, just like our mod_proxy_fcgi.

If you have looked at both mod_fastcgi and mod_fcgid, you will quickly 
see there is no resemblance.

mod_fcgid uses lots of 2.x concepts, like custom buckets types and 
brigades all over, while mod_fastcgi is a horrible horrible piece of 
code written for 1.x, and later ported to 2.x.


View raw message