Re: Apachelounge problems
I don't want to feed the troll, but after having read http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#Name-changes it sounds to me like the problem that made debian turn the name of firefox into iceweasel and their logo into whatever it is supposed to be (See the 4th section of http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines ) If the Apache foundation (or one of the comitters) threats a member of the community about legal issue concerning the name or a logo, it may ring a bell at debian packager's home. 2007/8/19, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 10:57:10AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: Released s/w is very very different from s/w that people can obtain from trunk via svn themselves. The former is an official distribution of a software project from the PMC (and hence the ASF). The latter is not. So what though? The *vast* majority of Apache users use versions which were not released by us. There's the Debian/Ubuntu version, the RedHat versions, the BSD versions, the Covalent versions and so on and on. Like I said, as long as ApacheLounge makes clear that the versions it carries are not ASF releases, it's certainly permitted by the license and not the least bit out of the ordinary. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- *Francois Pesce*
Re: Apachelounge problems
The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Just my 2c worth... Tom, indeed that is my feeling : territorial. There is more, see my next post about the Apache Feather I have to remove. Steffen - Original Message - From: Tom Donovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 03:46 Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: doesn't belong on any external site. Since it's not an ASF release, *you* are absorbing all the liability and risk that any released ASF package would carry. It's an apachelounge release, so you would personally answer to any IP issues. Not smart. Issac Goldstand wrote: Steffen, I really don't see anything threatening by what Bill said. On the ... posting an RC without enough bells, whistles or warning lights (regardless of how many notices you did put up about it being a RC and not a release; they'll say it's a binary and who's looking, or Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us that the Apache2 license protects released versions of Apache differently. My (possibly faulty) understanding was that the whole Redistribution and Disclaimer of Warranty parts applied to *any* Apache software - even if it was built from today's bug-ridden head revision of the trunk, and that it was a solid and reliable protection from just the scenario you describe. The you-must-build-it-yourself-from-source rule to test a release candidate probably isn't too much bother for Unix users, but many Windows users look to a small number of Windows builders to build a RC like Steffen's VC8 build so they can test what they expect to put into production once the version is released (*if* it is released of course!) I am certainly one of these. The likelihood that Apache Lounge members would mistake Steffen's 2.2.5 build for a released version is no greater than all the many other situations where unreleased versions of open-source software are available. Perhaps a first-time hobbyist experimenter might make this mistake, but certainly not any professional admins. The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Just my 2c worth... -tom-
Re: Apachelounge problems
Hello Steffen, I'm a Tomcat committer but not part of the httpd project. Nevertheless as all projects we also need to control, how release candidates get distributed. On the one hand we want a lot of testers to participate, on the other hand we need to unambiguously tell people downloading the code, that it's a non-release. After you wrote you feedback mail concerning test results for 2.2.5 I was curious and clicked on your download link. I remember that I was astonished, that the 2.2.5 download on that page was not further qualified as being pre-release, release candidate or similar. It could well be, that such an information would have been presented to me, in case I had tried to actually download, which I did not. But at first glance I could not see any information, that 2.2.5 wasn't yet released. Sometimes the problem is in the details. I hope you will soon open up your important community service at apachelounge again. Regards, Rainer Steffen wrote: The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Just my 2c worth... Tom, indeed that is my feeling : territorial. There is more, see my next post about the Apache Feather I have to remove. Steffen
Re: Apachelounge problems
Rainer, The announcement states it clearly. I had a discussion with Bill about 2.2.4 too in january, and he agreed on this. - Apache 2.2.5 Win32 RC available Apache 2.2.5 Win32 RC is now available for download here at the Apache Lounge. It is build without any modification to the ASF source and is expected soon to be released by ASF. Download and Changelog at www.apachelounge.com/download/ Please report when you have issues with this new build. - and on the download page: Apache 2.2.5 RC with apr-1.2.9 apr-util-1.2.8 apr-iconv-1.2.0 openssl-0.9.8e zlib-1.2.3 : -- - Original Message - From: Rainer Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 11:38 Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems Hello Steffen, I'm a Tomcat committer but not part of the httpd project. Nevertheless as all projects we also need to control, how release candidates get distributed. On the one hand we want a lot of testers to participate, on the other hand we need to unambiguously tell people downloading the code, that it's a non-release. After you wrote you feedback mail concerning test results for 2.2.5 I was curious and clicked on your download link. I remember that I was astonished, that the 2.2.5 download on that page was not further qualified as being pre-release, release candidate or similar. It could well be, that such an information would have been presented to me, in case I had tried to actually download, which I did not. But at first glance I could not see any information, that 2.2.5 wasn't yet released. Sometimes the problem is in the details. I hope you will soon open up your important community service at apachelounge again. Regards, Rainer Steffen wrote: The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Just my 2c worth... Tom, indeed that is my feeling : territorial. There is more, see my next post about the Apache Feather I have to remove. Steffen
Re: Apachelounge problems
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 05:09:08PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Hmmm... seems that - even though we've *repeated* this multiple times, we have to state this again. Contents of http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ are *development* tarballs and not for any distribution. It's called dist, clearly they are for any level distribution anyone feels like. Unless you want us to re-license! Since it's not an ASF release, *you* are absorbing all the liability and risk that any released ASF package would carry. It's an apachelounge release, so you would personally answer to any IP issues. Not smart. Oh come on, our processes are better than that, people can have a reasonably degree of assurance that our trees are licensable with the AL at any given time. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apachelounge problems
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 06:31:01PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: * does it correspond to the tag? * is it correctly licensed? * is it correctly packaged? * are any additions that appear to have IP encumbrances? * does it build? * does it run? * does it pass the perl-framework regression tests? Since it isn't a release, you don't want to 'ship' it. Who are we to impose our practises on someone else? ApacheLounge clearly does *want* to ship it, as is manifestly evident by the fact it does it so regularly. ApacheLounge can use whatever aribtrary criteria it likes for creating its releases - as long as it makes sure there is no confusion that they are ASF releases. The BSD ports trees regularly contain builds that don't meet the above btw. And I don't think I've *ever* come accross a Linux package that corresponded to the tag. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apachelounge problems
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 09:46:50PM -0400, Tom Donovan wrote: Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us that the Apache2 license protects released versions of Apache differently. It doesn't. My (possibly faulty) understanding was that the whole Redistribution and Disclaimer of Warranty parts applied to *any* Apache software - even if it was built from today's bug-ridden head revision of the trunk, It does. In order the protect *comitters* (not distributors) the ASF have some practises that allow it to (potentially) absorb some of the liability on releases. Because there's a vote and a chain of authority from the board yada yada yada in theory the release is made by the ASF as a corporate entity - not any single person. From the point of view of a distributor, this practise may incline you to accept that a release is more clean but it makes no difference to your liability. As always though, if distributors have legal concerns about anything, then they should consult *their* lawyers. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apachelounge problems
On Aug 18, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote: Steffen, I really don't see anything threatening by what Bill said. On the contrary, he very openly said that there's nothing illegal about releasing an RC; the way I read it, the potential problems are coming from endusers who might use a broken RC, fsck up their systems and go hunting (with a battery of lawyers) for someone to blame. In such a case the first stop would likely be the ASF, but the ASF would tell said pissed off user (and lawyers) that it's none of their concern if said enduser was neglegant enough to use an RC (not a release) in his environment. That is true. It is not a release until the ASF says so. We placed the 2.2.5 tarballs in the development dist location to allow people to test them (I've since made them 600, owned by me), but they are not yet really, officially released. It's a disservice to end-users if they think that they are.
Re: Apachelounge problems
On Aug 19, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 09:46:50PM -0400, Tom Donovan wrote: Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us that the Apache2 license protects released versions of Apache differently. It doesn't. My (possibly faulty) understanding was that the whole Redistribution and Disclaimer of Warranty parts applied to *any* Apache software - even if it was built from today's bug-ridden head revision of the trunk, It does. Released s/w is very very different from s/w that people can obtain from trunk via svn themselves. The former is an official distribution of a software project from the PMC (and hence the ASF). The latter is not.
Re: Apachelounge problems
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Like I said, as long as ApacheLounge makes clear that the versions it carries are not ASF releases, it's certainly permitted by the license and not the least bit out of the ordinary. That's the point, isn't it?? -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: Apachelounge problems
Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 05:09:08PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Hmmm... seems that - even though we've *repeated* this multiple times, we have to state this again. Contents of http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ are *development* tarballs and not for any distribution. It's called dist, clearly they are for any level distribution anyone feels like. Unless you want us to re-license! But the dist should be limited to people who are on/pay attention to this mailing list [1]. Anything else increases the personal liability of anyone involved in putting that tarball up on the website for download. If putting files into dev/dist conveys the implication that you intend for people to be *redistributing* those artifacts, then I think it is a mistake, and you'd be better off using people.apache.org/~foo for putting up candidates to test. That doesn't stop people from redistributing candidates, but it doesn't conflate the fact that the ASF/this PMC has done nothing to endorse them. [1] - http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what -- Joe Schaefer
Re: Apachelounge problems
Joe Schaefer wrote: Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 05:09:08PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Hmmm... seems that - even though we've *repeated* this multiple times, we have to state this again. Contents of http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ are *development* tarballs and not for any distribution. It's called dist, clearly they are for any level distribution anyone feels like. Unless you want us to re-license! But the dist should be limited to people who are on/pay attention to this mailing list [1]. Anything else increases the personal liability of anyone involved in putting that tarball up on the website for download. If putting files into dev/dist conveys the implication that you intend for people to be *redistributing* those artifacts, then I think it is a mistake, and you'd be better off using people.apache.org/~foo for putting up candidates to test. That doesn't stop people from redistributing candidates, but it doesn't conflate the fact that the ASF/this PMC has done nothing to endorse them. Personally, I intend to, in the future, put all candidate tarballs under my ~jim link; Not that this will remove the problem at all, but at least it avoids the irritating claim that somehow by placing under dev/dist we are releasing the s/w. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: Apachelounge problems
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 12:16:03PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Like I said, as long as ApacheLounge makes clear that the versions it carries are not ASF releases, it's certainly permitted by the license and not the least bit out of the ordinary. That's the point, isn't it?? Yes! And I think they should make it more clear :-) But I don't think we should be requesting them not to make RC tarballs or arbitrary checkouts from svn available, that's their choice. I think it's a bad idea for them, but ultimately their own problem. On principle I think it's wrong for us to request them not to - it's at odds with the OSI definition of open-source for one thing. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apachelounge problems
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 12:16:03PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Like I said, as long as ApacheLounge makes clear that the versions it carries are not ASF releases, it's certainly permitted by the license and not the least bit out of the ordinary. That's the point, isn't it?? Yes! And I think they should make it more clear :-) But I don't think we should be requesting them not to make RC tarballs or arbitrary checkouts from svn available, that's their choice. I think it's a bad idea for them, but ultimately their own problem. On principle I think it's wrong for us to request them not to - it's at odds with the OSI definition of open-source for one thing. As long as they don't call it Apache 2.2.5 or mislead people into thinking it is, I tend to agree. I think the point is that there are people out there right now running what they think is Apache 2.2.5 when, in fact, there is no such thing... -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Apachelounge problems
Hmmm... seems that - even though we've *repeated* this multiple times, we have to state this again. Contents of http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ are *development* tarballs and not for any distribution. None of our many other distributors seem to have problems with this concept, I hope Apachelounge starts to behave like a responsible member of the community. By now, you noticed 2.2.5 is scuttled and 2.2.6 will be rerolled. Without an announce, /dev/ tarball builds doesn't belong on any external site. Since it's not an ASF release, *you* are absorbing all the liability and risk that any released ASF package would carry. It's an apachelounge release, so you would personally answer to any IP issues. Not smart. The ASF holds release votes for a reason, to make certain that the release is an act of the foundation, and not individuals. Protect yourselves, guys. Bill
Re: Apachelounge problems
This is a big booom for me and some fellow webmasters. And is disappointing me, special the style you are using. This style gives me the impression that ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried to promote Apache in the Windows world. I close the site now to further notice, till we sort out this issue. I do not want to promote an Apache when I get this kind of messages in Public form one of the key guys from ASF. Just for testing this RC for our small community, we where thinking that we are helping. And it is stated in in the announcement and the readme says that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just a few are downloading it. 2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download, see for example: http://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir I feel some emotion in your message, so better that from now on, we should not test any RC anymore ? To be clear, Apache Lounge is just a small site with not a lot of visitors. And it is just for fun for some frinds who trying to help others. It is not a commercial site, more a hobby site. Stated is at the site I charge nothing . Btw: I got: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The e-mail message could not be delivered because the user's mailfolder is full. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 00:09 Subject: Apachelounge problems Hmmm... seems that - even though we've *repeated* this multiple times, we have to state this again. Contents of http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ are *development* tarballs and not for any distribution. None of our many other distributors seem to have problems with this concept, I hope Apachelounge starts to behave like a responsible member of the community. By now, you noticed 2.2.5 is scuttled and 2.2.6 will be rerolled. Without an announce, /dev/ tarball builds doesn't belong on any external site. Since it's not an ASF release, *you* are absorbing all the liability and risk that any released ASF package would carry. It's an apachelounge release, so you would personally answer to any IP issues. Not smart. The ASF holds release votes for a reason, to make certain that the release is an act of the foundation, and not individuals. Protect yourselves, guys. Bill
Re: Apachelounge problems
Steffen wrote: This is a big booom for me and some fellow webmasters. And is disappointing me, special the style you are using. This style gives me the impression that ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried to promote Apache in the Windows world. I think what you've done for creating a user community around Apache on Win is great! Please don't misunderstand that. I've had to bring up this issue before, however, and it's very disappointing the message didn't get through. And just had oral surgery Thursday, so color me cranky. I close the site now to further notice, till we sort out this issue. I do not want to promote an Apache when I get this kind of messages in Public form one of the key guys from ASF. Well, you should be aware there are no 'key guys' at the httpd project, except perhaps for Roy who happens to be the chairman (and he'll sign a note as the VP, httpd Project, if he's using that authority). It's a community of equals. There's no reason to shutter the site. Removing that item is more than enough to keep us happy, and to protect yourselves. Just for testing this RC for our small community, we where thinking that we are helping. And it is stated in in the announcement and the readme says that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just a few are downloading it. Maybe you misunderstood. We want *you* to try your *build* with that RC! We don't want it distributed to end users, there's a big difference. Let us know what's wrong with the tag, before you would be distributing it for the community. I think we've done a reasonable job keeping up with bug fixes in the Win32 build, especially catching up with VC 2005, partly for all the feedback you and fellow VS 2005 users have provided! 2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download, see for example: http://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir Well, it shouldn't be, but that's a matter to bring up with them individually. Understand that there is *no* 2.2.5. It doesn't exist until 3 project mbrs have voted +1, there are more +1's than -1's, and the RM declares it baked and moves it to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/. Ok? I feel some emotion in your message, so better that from now on, we should not test any RC anymore ? Because I brought this up before, last year? These are for developers to verify, they aren't for user testing. Actually, we are looking at issues such as; * does it correspond to the tag? * is it correctly licensed? * is it correctly packaged? * are any additions that appear to have IP encumbrances? * does it build? * does it run? * does it pass the perl-framework regression tests? Since it isn't a release, you don't want to 'ship' it. You just want to let [EMAIL PROTECTED] know that you reviewed it, and are +/-1 for release, so it gets baked quickly with no issues. You don't have to do every review step I mention above, but just perform the tests you like on the platforms you like. Having users asking questions about unreleased code just causes grief for the users@ community. You and our other testers know better; but they won't. Once we have that vote, and it's our release, it's the ASF's mistake if something went wrong. I got: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The e-mail message could not be delivered because the user's mailfolder is full. Weird (?!?) thanks for letting me know that! Bill
Re: Apachelounge problems
Thanks for the answer. I shall keep the site down, I am very disappointed and I feel threatened by you for legal stuff. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 01:31 Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems Steffen wrote: This is a big booom for me and some fellow webmasters. And is disappointing me, special the style you are using. This style gives me the impression that ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried to promote Apache in the Windows world. I think what you've done for creating a user community around Apache on Win is great! Please don't misunderstand that. I've had to bring up this issue before, however, and it's very disappointing the message didn't get through. And just had oral surgery Thursday, so color me cranky. I close the site now to further notice, till we sort out this issue. I do not want to promote an Apache when I get this kind of messages in Public form one of the key guys from ASF. Well, you should be aware there are no 'key guys' at the httpd project, except perhaps for Roy who happens to be the chairman (and he'll sign a note as the VP, httpd Project, if he's using that authority). It's a community of equals. There's no reason to shutter the site. Removing that item is more than enough to keep us happy, and to protect yourselves. Just for testing this RC for our small community, we where thinking that we are helping. And it is stated in in the announcement and the readme says that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just a few are downloading it. Maybe you misunderstood. We want *you* to try your *build* with that RC! We don't want it distributed to end users, there's a big difference. Let us know what's wrong with the tag, before you would be distributing it for the community. I think we've done a reasonable job keeping up with bug fixes in the Win32 build, especially catching up with VC 2005, partly for all the feedback you and fellow VS 2005 users have provided! 2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download, see for example: http://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir Well, it shouldn't be, but that's a matter to bring up with them individually. Understand that there is *no* 2.2.5. It doesn't exist until 3 project mbrs have voted +1, there are more +1's than -1's, and the RM declares it baked and moves it to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/. Ok? I feel some emotion in your message, so better that from now on, we should not test any RC anymore ? Because I brought this up before, last year? These are for developers to verify, they aren't for user testing. Actually, we are looking at issues such as; * does it correspond to the tag? * is it correctly licensed? * is it correctly packaged? * are any additions that appear to have IP encumbrances? * does it build? * does it run? * does it pass the perl-framework regression tests? Since it isn't a release, you don't want to 'ship' it. You just want to let [EMAIL PROTECTED] know that you reviewed it, and are +/-1 for release, so it gets baked quickly with no issues. You don't have to do every review step I mention above, but just perform the tests you like on the platforms you like. Having users asking questions about unreleased code just causes grief for the users@ community. You and our other testers know better; but they won't. Once we have that vote, and it's our release, it's the ASF's mistake if something went wrong. I got: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The e-mail message could not be delivered because the user's mailfolder is full. Weird (?!?) thanks for letting me know that! Bill
Re: Apachelounge problems
Steffen, I really don't see anything threatening by what Bill said. On the contrary, he very openly said that there's nothing illegal about releasing an RC; the way I read it, the potential problems are coming from endusers who might use a broken RC, fsck up their systems and go hunting (with a battery of lawyers) for someone to blame. In such a case the first stop would likely be the ASF, but the ASF would tell said pissed off user (and lawyers) that it's none of their concern if said enduser was neglegant enough to use an RC (not a release) in his environment. Said enduser (and lawyers) wouldn't like that answer, but there's nothing more they could do about it (since it's true), so they'd look for another scapegoat, and that would be the place they got the package: you. Said lawyers would likely point a finger at you for posting an RC without enough bells, whistles or warning lights (regardless of how many notices you did put up about it being a RC and not a release; they'll say it's a binary and who's looking, or something). The point is that Bill is simply trying to get you out of said situation by avoiding it altogether. You can ignore the help, and leave things as-is if you really want. Luckily (and probably), said situation won't happen, and everyone will be happy... or maybe not. And for the record, I'm a big fan of what you're doing in the win32 community, and I'd hate to see the site shut down for good... Issac Steffen wrote: Thanks for the answer. I shall keep the site down, I am very disappointed and I feel threatened by you for legal stuff. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 01:31 Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems Steffen wrote: This is a big booom for me and some fellow webmasters. And is disappointing me, special the style you are using. This style gives me the impression that ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried to promote Apache in the Windows world. I think what you've done for creating a user community around Apache on Win is great! Please don't misunderstand that. I've had to bring up this issue before, however, and it's very disappointing the message didn't get through. And just had oral surgery Thursday, so color me cranky. I close the site now to further notice, till we sort out this issue. I do not want to promote an Apache when I get this kind of messages in Public form one of the key guys from ASF. Well, you should be aware there are no 'key guys' at the httpd project, except perhaps for Roy who happens to be the chairman (and he'll sign a note as the VP, httpd Project, if he's using that authority). It's a community of equals. There's no reason to shutter the site. Removing that item is more than enough to keep us happy, and to protect yourselves. Just for testing this RC for our small community, we where thinking that we are helping. And it is stated in in the announcement and the readme says that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just a few are downloading it. Maybe you misunderstood. We want *you* to try your *build* with that RC! We don't want it distributed to end users, there's a big difference. Let us know what's wrong with the tag, before you would be distributing it for the community. I think we've done a reasonable job keeping up with bug fixes in the Win32 build, especially catching up with VC 2005, partly for all the feedback you and fellow VS 2005 users have provided! 2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download, see for example: http://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir Well, it shouldn't be, but that's a matter to bring up with them individually. Understand that there is *no* 2.2.5. It doesn't exist until 3 project mbrs have voted +1, there are more +1's than -1's, and the RM declares it baked and moves it to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/. Ok? I feel some emotion in your message, so better that from now on, we should not test any RC anymore ? Because I brought this up before, last year? These are for developers to verify, they aren't for user testing. Actually, we are looking at issues such as; * does it correspond to the tag? * is it correctly licensed? * is it correctly packaged? * are any additions that appear to have IP encumbrances? * does it build? * does it run? * does it pass the perl-framework regression tests? Since it isn't a release, you don't want to 'ship' it. You just want to let [EMAIL PROTECTED] know that you reviewed it, and are +/-1 for release, so it gets baked quickly with no issues. You don't have to do every review step I mention above, but just perform the tests you like on the platforms you like. Having users asking questions about unreleased code just causes grief for the users@ community. You and our other testers know better; but they won't. Once we have that vote
Re: Apachelounge problems
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: doesn't belong on any external site. Since it's not an ASF release, *you* are absorbing all the liability and risk that any released ASF package would carry. It's an apachelounge release, so you would personally answer to any IP issues. Not smart. Issac Goldstand wrote: Steffen, I really don't see anything threatening by what Bill said. On the ... posting an RC without enough bells, whistles or warning lights (regardless of how many notices you did put up about it being a RC and not a release; they'll say it's a binary and who's looking, or Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us that the Apache2 license protects released versions of Apache differently. My (possibly faulty) understanding was that the whole Redistribution and Disclaimer of Warranty parts applied to *any* Apache software - even if it was built from today's bug-ridden head revision of the trunk, and that it was a solid and reliable protection from just the scenario you describe. The you-must-build-it-yourself-from-source rule to test a release candidate probably isn't too much bother for Unix users, but many Windows users look to a small number of Windows builders to build a RC like Steffen's VC8 build so they can test what they expect to put into production once the version is released (*if* it is released of course!) I am certainly one of these. The likelihood that Apache Lounge members would mistake Steffen's 2.2.5 build for a released version is no greater than all the many other situations where unreleased versions of open-source software are available. Perhaps a first-time hobbyist experimenter might make this mistake, but certainly not any professional admins. The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Just my 2c worth... -tom-
Re: Apachelounge problems
Tom Donovan wrote: Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us that the Apache2 license protects released versions of Apache differently. First, I hope I was not threatening. As I said, my appologies if it came across that way, I'm not feeling up to par. That said, IANAL but I will pass on what I understand from my few years here... My (possibly faulty) understanding was that the whole Redistribution and Disclaimer of Warranty parts applied to *any* Apache software - even if it was built from today's bug-ridden head revision of the trunk, and that it was a solid and reliable protection from just the scenario you describe. Right - Disclaimer of Warranty means unless you add a Warranty, you are offering none under the Apache License. If they don't accept that license, they don't have a license to even use the code for any purpose. That applies no matter if it's code you wrote yourself and release under the AL, or code you grab from our working space, e.g. /dev/ or svn, or an actual release. The idea, and again IANAL, is that /dev/ and svn are work product, and not finished product, so a third party who has an *IP issue* with our sources will complain to us either way, and it will be resolved promptly (by removing the offending code, or by our disputing their claim). I understand, again IANAL, but there are different considerations about work product and released products which infringe on someone else's IP. The ASF wants to support you all, our users, by dealing with these. If you grab code out of svn or /dev/ for httpd related development, no trouble at all, you are handling work product. If you release that code as a product, then it's not the ASF's product, it's *your* product (which you have to give a different name to, per the Apache License). The you-must-build-it-yourself-from-source rule to test a release candidate probably isn't too much bother for Unix users, but many Windows users look to a small number of Windows builders to build a RC like Steffen's VC8 build so they can test what they expect to put into production once the version is released (*if* it is released of course!) Right. For purpose of discussion, if he posted a link to such binaries only on [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED], this would be less of an issue (or no issue at all). If you subscribe to testers@ or dev@ we all presume you know what these concepts mean, and will reply about problems to the right place where the problem can be solved, and know this is not a finished product. You are one of the workers on this project. I only want to protect our users and distributors by making this difference really clear. The binary on his site was Steffan's Web Server not the Apache HTTP Server 2.2.5. When httpd votes to release it and the RM posts up the binary, that gate is the exit door for the product to become the ASF's. The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Just my 2c worth... Nope. Not territorial, only frustrating since we had this discussion in January. Bill
Re: Apachelounge problems
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Hmmm... seems that - even though we've *repeated* this multiple times, we have to state this again. Contents of http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ are *development* tarballs and not for any distribution. Just out of curiosity, why don't we name the tarballs as such? httpd-2.2.5-RC.tar.gz or httpd-2.2.5-dev.tar.gz, and if the tarball gets enough votes, just rename it to httpd-2.2.5.tar.gz -- Davi Arnaut
