Re: mod_fcgid license questions
Piotr Gackiewicz wrote: Hi, my name is Piotr Gackiewicz and I am the autor of these patches. I confirm, that I personaly consider them as minor changes and agree, that you should put them into minor patch group. Without signing CLA and official Software Grant. I appreciate transferring this software into ASF very much and would like thank all you guys for the great work you put into this great software, which Apache is. Thanks for your reply, your agreement, and your contribution! Much appreciated, Chris. -- GPG Key ID: 366A375B GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
Re: Re: mod_fcgid license questions
Hi, guys Good news is I track down another author now. We are talking about the license questions now, so far so good :) Thanks -原始邮件- 发件人: Chris Darroch chr...@pearsoncmg.com 发送时间: 2009年1月1日 星期四 收件人: dev@httpd.apache.org 抄送: 主题: Re: mod_fcgid license questions Hi -- On 31 Dec 2008, at 05:48, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Foes anyone have a sense of whether these would indeed require a CLA and SGA? They look like simple repairs to me. More importantly, if he thinks they are simple repairs and he is happy to see them Apache Licensed, then there is no need for a CLA or software grant. +1. This is in the same ballpark as third-party patches we routinely accept, e.g. from reports in bugzilla. OK, that sounds reasonable. I think we're just waiting to hear from one other person, then. Chris. -- GPG Key ID: 366A375B GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, pqf wrote: Hi, guys Thanks Chris first :) Please take a look at the attachments, I got it from my mail archive. The errorlog patch is a minor patch. the poll patch change not much lines of code, but it did come with original idea. If Piotr Gackiewicz think his job is simple repairs, I think these patchs can be put to minor patch group too. - Original Message - From: Chris Darroch chr...@pearsoncmg.com To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:31 PM Subject: Re: mod_fcgid license questions pqf wrote: version 1.10 ( Jul 3rd 2006 ) 1. Use poll() instead of select() in UNIX. It becomes problematic on apache2 with large number of logfiles. Apache2 calls poll() (when OS supports it), and in that case it doesn't need to be recompiled with larger FD_SETSIZE. select() is still limited to FD_SETSIZE. (Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl for the patch.) 2. Bug fix: Some requests fail with HTTP 500 and no errorlog entry is generated (Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl for the patch.) Hi, my name is Piotr Gackiewicz and I am the autor of these patches. I confirm, that I personaly consider them as minor changes and agree, that you should put them into minor patch group. Without signing CLA and official Software Grant. I appreciate transferring this software into ASF very much and would like thank all you guys for the great work you put into this great software, which Apache is. Best regards, -- Piotr Gackiewicz Intertele S.A. - operator systemów ITL.PL i DOMENY.ITL.PL al. T. Rejtana 1, 35-326 Rzeszów TEL: +48 17 8507580, FAX: +48 17 8520275, INFOLINIA: 0 801 335523 http://www.itl.pl - niezawodne serwery wirtualne http://domeny.itl.pl- tanie domeny internetowe http://www.intertele.pl
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
On 31 Dec 2008, at 05:48, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Foes anyone have a sense of whether these would indeed require a CLA and SGA? They look like simple repairs to me. More importantly, if he thinks they are simple repairs and he is happy to see them Apache Licensed, then there is no need for a CLA or software grant. +1. This is in the same ballpark as third-party patches we routinely accept, e.g. from reports in bugzilla. -- Nick Kew
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
Hi -- On 31 Dec 2008, at 05:48, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Foes anyone have a sense of whether these would indeed require a CLA and SGA? They look like simple repairs to me. More importantly, if he thinks they are simple repairs and he is happy to see them Apache Licensed, then there is no need for a CLA or software grant. +1. This is in the same ballpark as third-party patches we routinely accept, e.g. from reports in bugzilla. OK, that sounds reasonable. I think we're just waiting to hear from one other person, then. Chris. -- GPG Key ID: 366A375B GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
pqf wrote:
version 1.10 ( Jul 3rd 2006 )
1. Use poll() instead of select() in UNIX. It becomes problematic on
apache2 with large number of logfiles. Apache2 calls poll()
(when OS supports it), and in that case it doesn't need to be recompiled
with larger FD_SETSIZE. select() is still limited to FD_SETSIZE.
(Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl for the patch.)
2. Bug fix: Some requests fail with HTTP 500 and no errorlog entry is
generated (Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl for the patch.)
Ryan has been in touch with Piotr Gackiewicz independently and Piotr
asks if we can confirm that a CLA and SGA are necessary, as he considers
his contribution to have been just simple repairs (his term).
From looking over the CVS repository at
http://mod-fcgid.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mod-fcgid/mod_fcgid/
it would appear to me that these patches amount to the following.
Foes anyone have a sense of whether these would indeed require
a CLA and SGA?
Chris.
=
--- fcgid_bridge.c2006/01/22 14:16:231.25
+++ fcgid_bridge.c2006/05/13 23:45:441.26
@@ -256,8 +256,11 @@
}
bucket_ctx = apr_pcalloc(request_pool, sizeof(*bucket_ctx));
-if (!bucket_ctx)
+if (!bucket_ctx) {
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv, r-server,
+ mod_fcgid: apr_calloc of %d bytes failed in handle_request
function, sizeof(*bucket_ctx));
return HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR;
+}
bucket_ctx-ipc.connect_timeout = g_connect_timeout;
bucket_ctx-ipc.communation_timeout = g_comm_timeout;
bucket_ctx-ipc.request = r;
@@ -315,7 +318,7 @@
/* Now I get a connected ipc handle */
if (!bucket_ctx-procnode) {
-ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, 0, r-server,
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, 0, r-server,
mod_fcgid: can't apply process slot for %s, argv0);
return HTTP_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE;
}
@@ -326,7 +329,7 @@
if ((rv =
proc_write_ipc(main_server, bucket_ctx-ipc,
output_brigade)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
-ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, rv, r-server,
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv, r-server,
mod_fcgid: write data to fastcgi server error);
bucket_ctx-has_error = 1;
return HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR;
@@ -335,8 +338,11 @@
/* Create brigade */
brigade_stdout =
apr_brigade_create(request_pool, r-connection-bucket_alloc);
-if (!brigade_stdout)
+if (!brigade_stdout) {
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv, r-server,
+ mod_fcgid: apr_brigade_create failed in handle_request
function);
return HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR;
+}
APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(brigade_stdout,
ap_bucket_fcgid_header_create(r-connection-
bucket_alloc,
@@ -346,7 +352,11 @@
/* Check the script header first. If got error, return immediately */
if ((cond_status = ap_scan_script_header_err_core
(r, sbuf, getsfunc_fcgid_BRIGADE, brigade_stdout)) = 400)
+{
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, rv, r-server,
+mod_fcgid: ap_scan_script_header_err_core failed in
handle_request function: %d, cond_status);
return cond_status;
+}
/* Check redirect */
location = apr_table_get(r-headers_out, Location);
@@ -377,6 +387,9 @@
if ((rv =
ap_pass_brigade(r-output_filters,
brigade_stdout)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv, r-server,
+ mod_fcgid: ap_pass_brigade failed in handle_request
function);
+
return HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR;
}
@@ -437,7 +450,7 @@
AP_MODE_READBYTES,
APR_BLOCK_READ,
HUGE_STRING_LEN)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
-ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, rv,
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv,
main_server,
mod_fcgid: can't get data from http client);
apr_brigade_destroy(output_brigade);
--- arch/unix/fcgid_proc_unix.c2006/01/22 14:16:231.27
+++ arch/unix/fcgid_proc_unix.c2006/05/13 23:45:441.28
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
#include sys/un.h
#include sys/types.h
#include netinet/tcp.h/* For TCP_NODELAY */
+#include sys/poll.h
#define CORE_PRIVATE
#include httpd.h
#include apr_thread_proc.h
@@ -525,10 +526,9 @@
fcgid_ipc * ipc_handle, const char *buffer,
apr_size_t * size)
{
-fd_set rset;
-struct timeval tv;
int retcode, unix_socket;
fcgid_namedpipe_handle *handle_info;
+struct pollfd pollfds[1];
handle_info = (fcgid_namedpipe_handle *) ipc_handle-ipc_handle_info;
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Chris Darroch wrote: pqf wrote: version 1.10 ( Jul 3rd 2006 ) 1. Use poll() instead of select() in UNIX. It becomes problematic on apache2 with large number of logfiles. Apache2 calls poll() (when OS supports it), and in that case it doesn't need to be recompiled with larger FD_SETSIZE. select() is still limited to FD_SETSIZE. (Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl for the patch.) 2. Bug fix: Some requests fail with HTTP 500 and no errorlog entry is generated (Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl for the patch.) Ryan has been in touch with Piotr Gackiewicz independently and Piotr asks if we can confirm that a CLA and SGA are necessary, as he considers his contribution to have been just simple repairs (his term). From looking over the CVS repository at http://mod-fcgid.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mod-fcgid/mod_fcgid/ it would appear to me that these patches amount to the following. Foes anyone have a sense of whether these would indeed require a CLA and SGA? They look like simple repairs to me. More importantly, if he thinks they are simple repairs and he is happy to see them Apache Licensed, then there is no need for a CLA or software grant. Roy
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
Hi, guys
Thanks Chris first :)
Please take a look at the attachments, I got it from my mail archive. The
errorlog patch is a minor patch. the poll patch change not much lines of code,
but it did come with original idea.If Piotr Gackiewicz think his job is
simple repairs, I think these patchs can be put to minor patch group too.
Thanks
- Original Message -
From: Chris Darroch chr...@pearsoncmg.com
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: mod_fcgid license questions
pqf wrote:
version 1.10 ( Jul 3rd 2006 )
1. Use poll() instead of select() in UNIX. It becomes problematic on
apache2 with large number of logfiles. Apache2 calls poll()
(when OS supports it), and in that case it doesn't need to be recompiled
with larger FD_SETSIZE. select() is still limited to FD_SETSIZE.
(Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl for the patch.)
2. Bug fix: Some requests fail with HTTP 500 and no errorlog entry is
generated (Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl for the patch.)
Ryan has been in touch with Piotr Gackiewicz independently and Piotr
asks if we can confirm that a CLA and SGA are necessary, as he considers
his contribution to have been just simple repairs (his term).
From looking over the CVS repository at
http://mod-fcgid.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mod-fcgid/mod_fcgid/
it would appear to me that these patches amount to the following.
Foes anyone have a sense of whether these would indeed require
a CLA and SGA?
Chris.
=
--- fcgid_bridge.c2006/01/22 14:16:231.25
+++ fcgid_bridge.c2006/05/13 23:45:441.26
@@ -256,8 +256,11 @@
}
bucket_ctx = apr_pcalloc(request_pool, sizeof(*bucket_ctx));
-if (!bucket_ctx)
+if (!bucket_ctx) {
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv, r-server,
+ mod_fcgid: apr_calloc of %d bytes failed in
handle_request function, sizeof(*bucket_ctx));
return HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR;
+}
bucket_ctx-ipc.connect_timeout = g_connect_timeout;
bucket_ctx-ipc.communation_timeout = g_comm_timeout;
bucket_ctx-ipc.request = r;
@@ -315,7 +318,7 @@
/* Now I get a connected ipc handle */
if (!bucket_ctx-procnode) {
-ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, 0, r-server,
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, 0, r-server,
mod_fcgid: can't apply process slot for %s, argv0);
return HTTP_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE;
}
@@ -326,7 +329,7 @@
if ((rv =
proc_write_ipc(main_server, bucket_ctx-ipc,
output_brigade)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
-ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, rv, r-server,
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv, r-server,
mod_fcgid: write data to fastcgi server error);
bucket_ctx-has_error = 1;
return HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR;
@@ -335,8 +338,11 @@
/* Create brigade */
brigade_stdout =
apr_brigade_create(request_pool, r-connection-bucket_alloc);
-if (!brigade_stdout)
+if (!brigade_stdout) {
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv, r-server,
+ mod_fcgid: apr_brigade_create failed in handle_request
function);
return HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR;
+}
APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(brigade_stdout,
ap_bucket_fcgid_header_create(r-connection-
bucket_alloc,
@@ -346,7 +352,11 @@
/* Check the script header first. If got error, return immediately */
if ((cond_status = ap_scan_script_header_err_core
(r, sbuf, getsfunc_fcgid_BRIGADE, brigade_stdout)) = 400)
+{
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, rv, r-server,
+mod_fcgid: ap_scan_script_header_err_core failed in
handle_request function: %d, cond_status);
return cond_status;
+}
/* Check redirect */
location = apr_table_get(r-headers_out, Location);
@@ -377,6 +387,9 @@
if ((rv =
ap_pass_brigade(r-output_filters,
brigade_stdout)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv, r-server,
+ mod_fcgid: ap_pass_brigade failed in handle_request
function);
+
return HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR;
}
@@ -437,7 +450,7 @@
AP_MODE_READBYTES,
APR_BLOCK_READ,
HUGE_STRING_LEN)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
-ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, rv,
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, rv,
main_server,
mod_fcgid: can't get data from http client);
apr_brigade_destroy(output_brigade);
--- arch/unix/fcgid_proc_unix.c2006
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:43:01 -0800 Chris Darroch chr...@pearsoncmg.com wrote: pqf wrote: Sorry for the delay, I have track down all patches base on my ChangeLog ( I keep my mail archive), so here is my brief: Minor patches ...Ignore here, I attach a file to show every modification to every ChangeLog entry. (If anyone think any change is major, please let me know) On a quick skim-through, what looks like the only large patch here belongs to Nick Kew, who's also an active httpd committer. Hmmm, I know I've sent feedback to Ryan on mod_fcgid, but I really didn't think it was anything substantial. If it's the biggest contribution not yet covered, then I think we're basically there. So, that mean there are other two people are involved. If that's all it is, that should be fairly simple. I guess I'll ask the list again what the next step should be ... a vote? Contacting these folks? Advice appreciated! Thanks, happy holidays to everyone. Contact those two people, explain that a donation has been proposed, and ask if they're happy to have their work relicensed under ASL? IMO it's probably best if Ryan contacts them in the first instance, but it might be easiest for a native English speaker to draft the message. I don't mind giving it some thought once my wretched cold has cleared out of my head. -- Nick Kew
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
On Dec 16, 2008, at 4:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 12/16/2008 10:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Chris Darroch wrote: pqf wrote: For the moment, though, I think we're just waiting for some feedback from other httpd developers and especially those with some experience of the Incubator process. I or someone else likely needs to draft and submit a proposal to the Incubator, for example, as a next step. Any thoughts here from other folks? I'd prefer that we simply sponsor this effort under the httpd PMC here at our project. We have to file an IP code clearance through the Incubator, but that's relatively simple (and a good part is finished already now that the appropriate paperwork is filed with the secretary). Does anyone feel that the addition of mod_fcgid should be driven through the incubator? Speaking first hand, it didn't resolve the shortcomings of lack of community behind mod_aspdotnet, and didn't really give mod_ftp the visibility it needed (and attracted once it graduated). So for most existing modules, I don't think it solves many of the problems we might or might not face here at httpd. +1. I see no need to put it in the incubator, except for the IP code clearance paperwork. So it seems that the above fast track through the incubator to do just that should be enough. Afterwards put it in trunk and lets see how we can 'merge' it with mod_proxy_fcgi. +1.
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
pqf wrote: Sorry for the delay, I have track down all patches base on my ChangeLog ( I keep my mail archive), so here is my brief: Minor patches ...Ignore here, I attach a file to show every modification to every ChangeLog entry. (If anyone think any change is major, please let me know) On a quick skim-through, what looks like the only large patch here belongs to Nick Kew, who's also an active httpd committer. Major patches So, that mean there are other two people are involved. If that's all it is, that should be fairly simple. I guess I'll ask the list again what the next step should be ... a vote? Contacting these folks? Advice appreciated! Thanks, happy holidays to everyone. Chris. -- GPG Key ID: 366A375B GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
Hi, all
Sorry for the delay, I have track down all patches base on my ChangeLog( I
keep my mail archive), so here is my brief:
the Inside job
version 0.76 ( Jul 6th 2004 )
1. Code fix. Replace the depreciated BRIGADE_FOREACH macro, which compile
against httpd 2.1-Dev.
(Patch by Paul Querna(chip at force-elite.com))
Version2.1 ( Feb 15th 2007 )
3. Bug fix. Authoritative flag reversed
Thank Chris Darroch for the patch
---
Minor patches
...Ignore here, I attach a file to show every modification to every ChangeLog
entry. (If anyone think any change is major, please let me know)
Major patches
version 1.10 ( Jul 3rd 2006 )
1. Use poll() instead of select() in UNIX. It becomes problematic on apache2
with large number of logfiles. Apache2 calls poll() (when OS supports it), and
in that case it doesn't need to be recompiled with larger FD_SETSIZE. select()
is still limited to FD_SETSIZE.(Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl
for the patch.)
2. Bug fix: Some requests fail with HTTP 500 and no errorlog entry is
generated (Thank Piotr Gackiewicz gacek at intertele.pl for the patch.)
Version2.2 (Jul 31st 2007)
3. Support configuration TimeScore
Thank Tim Jensen for the patch.
(This is a patch from sourceforge.net:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/download.php?group_id=174879atid=870993file_id=218023aid=1670268,
author is https://sourceforge.net/users/timjensen66/)
So, that mean there are other two people are involved.
Thanks
- Original Message -
From: Chris Darroch chr...@pearsoncmg.com
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: mod_fcgid license questions
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
How many are we talking about (in the significant category)? The
easiest way probably depends on how many people, how easy they are
to contact, etc.
Ryan, do you have a rough sense of this?
From my own review of the ChangeLog, it looks like there are
roughly about 10-12 major contributions by others (two of whom are
httpd committers). There are lots of additional people listed,
but these seem to divide up between minor patch contributions,
thanks for bug reports or for testing a bug fix, or thanks for
suggesting a possible new feature.
Clearly, though, we'll need Ryan to look through and identify
the major contributors.
I'd prefer that we simply sponsor this effort under the httpd PMC here
at our project.
We have to file an IP code clearance through the Incubator, but that's
relatively simple (and a good part is finished already now that the
appropriate paperwork is filed with the secretary).
Does anyone feel that the addition of mod_fcgid should be driven through
the incubator? Speaking first hand, it didn't resolve the shortcomings
of lack of community behind mod_aspdotnet, and didn't really give mod_ftp
the visibility it needed (and attracted once it graduated). So for most
existing modules, I don't think it solves many of the problems we might
or might not face here at httpd.
I really don't know all the options here, but from what you describe,
it sounds like a faster track to get the IP code clearance done would
be ideal, if possible. So, a +1 from me if this is feasible.
Thanks,
Chris.
--
GPG Key ID: 366A375B
GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
--
version 1.04 ( Dec 2nd 2004 )
1. Bug fix. ap_scan_script_header_err_core can return non OK without errors.
e.g. CGI outputs Last-Modified header and browser request with
If-Mofieided-Since header, ap_scan_script_header_err_core() may returns 302(Not
Modified)
(Thank Tatsuki Sugiura, sugi at nemui.org for the bug fix patch)
--- fcgid_bridge.c.orig 2004-11-11 09:40:17.0 +0900
+++ fcgid_bridge.c 2004-11-11 09:41:30.0 +0900
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@
server_rec *main_server = r-server;
fcgid_command fcgi_request;
fcgid_bucket_ctx *bucket_ctx;
- int i, stopping;
+ int i, stopping, cond_status;
apr_status_t rv;
apr_bucket_brigade *brigade_stdout;
char sbuf[MAX_STRING_LEN];
@@ -330,11 +330,10 @@
bucket_ctx));
/*APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(brigade_stdout,
apr_bucket_flush_create(r-connection-bucket_alloc)); */
- /* Check the script header first */
- if (ap_scan_script_header_err_core
- (r, sbuf, getsfunc_fcgid_BRIGADE, brigade_stdout) != OK) {
- return HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR;
- }
+ /* Check the script header first. If got error, return immediately */
+ if ((cond_status = ap_scan_script_header_err_core
+ (r, sbuf, getsfunc_fcgid_BRIGADE, brigade_stdout)) = 400)
+ return cond_status;
/* Check redirect */
location = apr_table_get(r
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: How many are we talking about (in the significant category)? The easiest way probably depends on how many people, how easy they are to contact, etc. Ryan, do you have a rough sense of this? From my own review of the ChangeLog, it looks like there are roughly about 10-12 major contributions by others (two of whom are httpd committers). There are lots of additional people listed, but these seem to divide up between minor patch contributions, thanks for bug reports or for testing a bug fix, or thanks for suggesting a possible new feature. Clearly, though, we'll need Ryan to look through and identify the major contributors. I'd prefer that we simply sponsor this effort under the httpd PMC here at our project. We have to file an IP code clearance through the Incubator, but that's relatively simple (and a good part is finished already now that the appropriate paperwork is filed with the secretary). Does anyone feel that the addition of mod_fcgid should be driven through the incubator? Speaking first hand, it didn't resolve the shortcomings of lack of community behind mod_aspdotnet, and didn't really give mod_ftp the visibility it needed (and attracted once it graduated). So for most existing modules, I don't think it solves many of the problems we might or might not face here at httpd. I really don't know all the options here, but from what you describe, it sounds like a faster track to get the IP code clearance done would be ideal, if possible. So, a +1 from me if this is feasible. Thanks, Chris. -- GPG Key ID: 366A375B GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
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. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: dev@httpd.apache.org; Ryan pan p...@mailtech.cn 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
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
pqf wrote: 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, Ryan -- that was fast! :-) I think first we probably need to wait for the secretary to check the documents and let you know if there's anything left to do with those. Beyond that, I think we're waiting for some consensus (if more is needed) from httpd committers that they'd like to proceed, and then, yes, I'd expect that while in the Incubator we'd hope for your help in tracking down the major contributors. For the moment, though, I think we're just waiting for some feedback from other httpd developers and especially those with some experience of the Incubator process. I or someone else likely needs to draft and submit a proposal to the Incubator, for example, as a next step. Any thoughts here from other folks? One thing to note is that with Christmas and other end-of-year holidays coming up things might move a little slowly for a couple of weeks. Thank you again for your efforts! Chris. -- GPG Key ID: 366A375B GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
Chris Darroch wrote: pqf wrote: 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 :) Yea; since all of your significant contributors (excluding simple maintenance fixes and things that can't be copyrighted, such as data or facts) assigned license as GPL, they need to relicense their work as Apache License, sign a grant for their contributions or just file an iclas and offer their patch(es) to this list. How many are we talking about (in the significant category)? The easiest way probably depends on how many people, how easy they are to contact, etc. For the moment, though, I think we're just waiting for some feedback from other httpd developers and especially those with some experience of the Incubator process. I or someone else likely needs to draft and submit a proposal to the Incubator, for example, as a next step. Any thoughts here from other folks? I'd prefer that we simply sponsor this effort under the httpd PMC here at our project. We have to file an IP code clearance through the Incubator, but that's relatively simple (and a good part is finished already now that the appropriate paperwork is filed with the secretary). Does anyone feel that the addition of mod_fcgid should be driven through the incubator? Speaking first hand, it didn't resolve the shortcomings of lack of community behind mod_aspdotnet, and didn't really give mod_ftp the visibility it needed (and attracted once it graduated). So for most existing modules, I don't think it solves many of the problems we might or might not face here at httpd.
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
On 12/16/2008 10:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Chris Darroch wrote: pqf wrote: For the moment, though, I think we're just waiting for some feedback from other httpd developers and especially those with some experience of the Incubator process. I or someone else likely needs to draft and submit a proposal to the Incubator, for example, as a next step. Any thoughts here from other folks? I'd prefer that we simply sponsor this effort under the httpd PMC here at our project. We have to file an IP code clearance through the Incubator, but that's relatively simple (and a good part is finished already now that the appropriate paperwork is filed with the secretary). Does anyone feel that the addition of mod_fcgid should be driven through the incubator? Speaking first hand, it didn't resolve the shortcomings of lack of community behind mod_aspdotnet, and didn't really give mod_ftp the visibility it needed (and attracted once it graduated). So for most existing modules, I don't think it solves many of the problems we might or might not face here at httpd. +1. I see no need to put it in the incubator, except for the IP code clearance paperwork. So it seems that the above fast track through the incubator to do just that should be enough. Afterwards put it in trunk and lets see how we can 'merge' it with mod_proxy_fcgi. Regards Rüdiger
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
pqf wrote: 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. 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. But I would like to see someone else take over my mod_fcgid project and continune to make it better. I get a lot from the others (that why I like open source and share), and I would like to share to the other if I have a chance. It's my pleasure if ASF willing to take it over. Thanks, Ryan, for replying so promptly! OK, well, how should we proceed from here? From my reading of the Incubator process, if there's some consensus on this list that we'd like to explore adopting mod_fcgid, we begin by recruiting a Champion and then working on a proposal to make to the Incubator PMC. If accepted, I assume we'd then get a license grant or transfer from Ryan and work on tracking down those folks from the ChangeLog who've made substantial contributions (more than just repair work). Are there steps I'm not aware of here? Advice from those on the Incubator PMC or with Incubator experience would be most welcome. Thanks, Chris. -- GPG Key ID: 366A375B GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
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
Re: mod_fcgid license questions
Hi, guys Nice to meet you :) I hope I can help to clarify the questions. 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. 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. Finally, Ryan, would you mind re-stating for the record your interest in the idea of mod_fcgid becoming an Apache project? Actually I didn't care too much about which license I should choose. The reason I chose GPL is that all other license descriptions are in English and are tricky. I didn't want to spend much time on studying those terms so I just followed most of people to choose GPL. I intended to put it as open source so people can share. I don't really care which license it is under. (Thanks Miss Xiaomei for this native translation) I was single when I developed this project, but now I have to spend more time with my family, and I am now actually interesting on LinuxTV things(So I can spend time on something both I and my wife need :). But I would like to see someone else take over my mod_fcgid project and continune to make it better. I get a lot from the others(that why I like open source and share), and I would like to share to the other if I have a chance. It's my pleasure if ASF willing to take it over. Anything I can help please let me know :) Thanks - Original Message - From: Chris Darroch chr...@pearsoncmg.com To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 6:15 AM Subject: mod_fcgid license questions Hi -- I believe Pan Qingfeng (潘庆峰), the developer of mod_fcgid, has joined this list for the time being while the possibility of mod_fcgid becoming project in the Apache incubator is discussed. I'll use his English name of Ryan Pan from here on. I asked Ryan to join so that he could answer the couple of questions regarding the origin of the mod_fcgid code and his licensing intentions which have come up so far, and also to thank him publicly for being willing to consider contributing mod_fcgid to the ASF. Ryan, the main question which has come up in the last couple of days seems to be this one: When you wrote mod_fcgid, was there any code which you borrowed from mod_fastcgi? The other questions I had related to the existing license for mod_fcgid: 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? (I ask because the LICENSE file in mod_fcgid contains the GPL 2.0, however, the .c and .h files don't also include the usual GPL text.) Finally, Ryan, would you mind re-stating for the record your interest in the idea of mod_fcgid becoming an Apache project? I'd like to personally extend my thanks to Ryan for developing mod_fcgid in the first place, for his interest in the idea of contributing it to the ASF, and for being willing to work through the licensing issues that will involve. Many thanks! (I'd also like to thank my colleague Sharon or Xiaomei Ma (笑梅), an excellent developer in her own right, for her help translating some of the communications Ryan and I have already had.) Chris. -- GPG Key ID: 366A375B GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
