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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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)
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??
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
.
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
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
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
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?
22 matches
Mail list logo
