Hi, all
I have signed the two documents(
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt and
http://www.apache.org/licenses/iclas), and emailed the scan version to
secretary at apache.org.
So what I should do next is? Should I contact all major contributors and
ask for the agreement to this:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt. Or I just identify all the
major contributors and wait for next step? Anything I can do please let me know
:)
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; "Ryan pan" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: mod_fcgid license questions
> pqf wrote:
>> Hi, guys
>> Nice to meet you :) I hope I can help to clarify the questions.
>
> Likewise :)
>
>>> When you wrote mod_fcgid, was there any code which you borrowed
>>> from mod_fastcgi?
>> No. I didn't borrow any code from mod_fastcgi.
>
> That's good - we are looking at the headers you use and the fcgi package
> liberal licensing (as opposed to the mod_fastcgi package).
>
>>> Your current intention is for mod_fcgid to be available under
>>> the GPL version 2.0, correct? Could you confirm that you wanted
>>> the GPL to apply to all the mod_fcgid code?
>> Yes, I confirm I wanted the GPL version 2.0 apply to everything.
>
> So to clarify, you don't seem strongly married to any particular license.
>
> Is the AL 2.0 acceptable and would you be willing to license it such, or
> offer a software grant under the terms of the AL 2.0? See
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
> we would also want to capture a CLA so that you can contribute your own
> ideas to the new code
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
>
> Finally, if there are other contributors to the efforts, aside from the
> obvious simple bug fixes and maintenance, we would need their buy-in as
> well, and count on you to identify such people that have shaped fcgid.
>
> Looking forward to this solution!
>
> Bill
>
