Theo de Raadt wrote:
> apache2 is not free enough.
Ok. There were some additional reasons mentioned, but licensing is
enough on its own. I found the old announcement now that I know what to
look for:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2004-06/0448.html
Apache 1.3.29 is decent enough and has the functionality, name brand
recognition and familiarity needed. But without updates, it seems a
dead end and not a good idea for new activities. I'm also not finding
reference to IPv6 in the documentation for Apache 1.3.x either online or
in the man pages and that was my main reason for even looking at Apache2.
A fork does not seem like a good return on investment, so v 1.3.29 will
probably go away sooner than later once the Apache Foundation drops
maintenance on the 1.3 series.
Gregg proposed, nginx ( http://nginx.net/ ), which seems to be just
getting started. It's under a 'BSD-like' license. It might work, but
seems new.
I see Lighttpd already in the 'packages' and it is under an appropriate
license. In the last year, it has gained a lot in both visibility and
user-base. In a lot of cases, perhaps most, new setups could be steered
towards Lighttpd, if it were mentioned in the documentation here and
there. I probably would have chosen it over grabbing Apache2 from the
ports tree had it been mentioned. Apache2 and Lighttpd both required
some adjustment and I would rather future-proof my activities, just in
case they have to be supported that long.
The mention of it can be small and does not need to affect how things
are currently done. But as more use it, it will be easier later to drop
Apache when (if) the time comes.
Would something like this be appropriate at the tail end of the httpd
man page for v 1.3.29?
Due to licensing changes, the version of Apache shipped with
OpenBSD will stay at version 1.3.29. Bugfixes will be provided,
but no further updates. Alternatively, Lighttpd is available
via OpenBSD's packages.
Regards,
-Lars
