[nycbug-talk] Fwd: no more apache updates

Pete Wright pete
Mon Jun 7 13:00:33 EDT 2004

G. Rosamond wrote:

> On Jun 7, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Pete Wright wrote:
>> <snip>
>> hey all,
>>    so i just read up on the thread regarding this decision.  i am 
>> not  on the openBSD list currently.  maybe someone on the nycbug list 
>> can  explain in better detail/clarity what the OBSD team finds wrong 
>> with  the ASF 2.0 license?   From my perspective, as a sysadmin, 
>> there are  some pretty interesting features in httpd 2.x that i was 
>> looking  forward to.  What I gathered from the thread was aside from 
>> the  license issues, the httpd team was not very receptive in 
>> accepting  patches from the obsd team.  If that's true that's kinda 
>> lame :(
>> here is a link to a web-based thread of the discusion:
>> http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archive/openbsd-misc/200406/ 
>> msg00398.html
> This started a few months back. . .I don't remember licensing detail  
> changes, but there's threads and a writeup on the Free Software  
> Foundation site. . .
cool thanks I'll check out the FSF site for that.

> From what I remember, the details of the change was irrelevant.  . 
> .it  was the idea of change in the first place.
> I remember Theo writing that once lawyers tell developers 'how to 
> make  their software more free', there's a problem.
> Some people have reacted that OBSD and the FSF went overboard, that  
> this wasn't a big deal.
> Regardless, it does set a tone for everyone, which I think is right.   
> It's too easy for projects to evolve their licensing due to lawyer  
> input, and ultimately away from the FOSS community.
well despite these differences at least it is all happening in the open 
so that the end user community has an idea of what's going on.  I'll 
take an open disgreement over sudden changes in roadmaps that the user 
has no idea is coming any day.


Pete Wright
pete at nomadlogic.org

More information about the talk mailing list