On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Tasos Andras <kho...@gmail.com> wrote: > I really wonder why you Apache guys did this:
Did what, released our software under a license of our choosing? > A news from 2004: > http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/07/1621254 > It is 2010 now, and we're still on Apache 1.3.29. What was that license > problem? Ask someone who objects to the license? Or do your homework before before you start a thread questioning the license? > Let OpenBSD dev guys edit/improve/modify it however they like, please. > (Well, unless they won't change the 'Apache' httpd header) Like everyone else, they can do whatever they please as long as they abide by the license. > Freedom? Free? If "free", then make it "free for everyone, every > community, every people" please. Otherwise it is not "free" anymore. I respect your personal opinion/desires about what software freedom means, but seeing as how you don't know what the actual license objection is, it's pretty odd that you've been able to come to a conclusion. You're always free to create your own webserver, and license it under your own Platitudes License 2.0. > Oh, by the way, what was your answer for: > "There is a number of serious security problems in apache that we have > fixed, and that have been offered them back, and they refused." > @ > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=108655793112947&w=2 Why would there be an 'answer' to a) a statement and b) something that was posted on somebody elses mailing list? > May i know what did you refuse and why did you refuse? You'd have to refer to a specific bug report, patch, mailing list reference, or at least a specific issue for anyone to comment intelligently -- especially if this 6+ years ago. This is probably more on-topic at the users discussion list unless there's an actual question about the development of Apache HTTP Server. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
