William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
Signing good, hash files are in a format at least my md5sum and sha1sum
do not understand how to check.
Can anyone point out what I'm doing wrong with 'gpg --print-md md5'? Am I
missing some magic flag, or is the idea of using gpg to create
mod_fcgid freinds;
Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
[ ] -1 for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:10 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Chris Darroch wrote:
wr...@apache.org wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=807823view=rev
Log:
suppose this would be worth noting
Changes with mod_fcgid 2.3.1
+ *) Complete the unix port
Jeff Trawick wrote:
(brain dump since I have to get some real work done)
:)
Here's a patch to get the proper header files included for the apr 0.9.x
compatibility code.
http://people.apache.org/~trawick/fcgid_2.0.x_detect.patch
Is it worth the trouble to make that ugly code (copy of
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
(brain dump since I have to get some real work done)
:)
Here's a patch to get the proper header files included for the apr 0.9.x
compatibility code.
And if I wasn't clear, please feel free to dump this into svn, I'll assure
it doesn't break
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Thank you for all this work ... it's much appreciated, especially
since I've been utterly useless lately on the httpd front. Thanks again!
So... if I throw the effort at getting unix to build clean for httpd-2.0
branch, you won't be offended ;-?
Seriously, no
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
(brain dump since I have to get some real work done)
:)
Here's a patch to get the proper header files included for the apr 0.9.x
compatibility code.
will not deny this may possibly be my fault.
Regards,
Gregg
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Chris Darroch wrote:
wr...@apache.org wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=807823view=rev
Log:
suppose this would be worth noting
Changes with mod_fcgid 2.3.1
I'm rolling sometime tomorrow
Gregg L. Smith wrote:
Faulting application httpd.exe, version 2.2.13.0, faulting module
libapr-1.dll, version 1.3.8.0, fault address 0x793d.
Gregg, your Dr Watson or windbg fault backtrace please?
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Fri Jul 24 20:54:46 2009
New Revision: 797647
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=797647view=rev
Log:
use our apr specific methods of merging this server config table and array
Modified:
httpd/mod_fcgid
Hi Bill,
Since I had tossed it all you forced me to rebuild. I do not remember
doing anything different prior but
The Culprit;
My usual disclaimer, I will not deny this may possibly be my fault.
Sorry and Thanks for getting this module going. I can think of a lot of
people that will be
Jeff Trawick wrote:
do you have any code yet to call this function?
Once again, compiler warnings are our friend. Yes, this needs to be
invoked, but it's a NTP, and the code I tossed was a new direction
I wanted to go in, which would pick up all the PassEnv and other
overrides, and set these
wr...@apache.org wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=807823view=rev
Log:
suppose this would be worth noting
Changes with mod_fcgid 2.3.1
+ *) Complete the unix port to 2.3-dev trunk. [William Rowe]
Thank you for all this work ... it's much appreciated, especially
since I've
Chris Darroch wrote:
wr...@apache.org wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=807823view=rev
Log:
suppose this would be worth noting
Changes with mod_fcgid 2.3.1
+ *) Complete the unix port to 2.3-dev trunk. [William Rowe]
Thank you for all this work ... it's much
On 08/24/2009 10:35 PM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Mon Aug 24 20:35:09 2009
New Revision: 807368
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=807368view=rev
Log:
Note changes
Modified:
httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/mod_fcgid/CHANGES
Modified: httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/mod_fcgid
that they are not responsible for the various
processing which httpd has already performed, internally.
Folks, the patch inspires two questions;
Modified: httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/mod_fcgid/mod_fcgid.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/mod_fcgid/mod_fcgid.c?rev=797603r1=797602r2=797603view=diff
processing which httpd has already performed, internally.
Folks, the patch inspires two questions;
Modified: httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/mod_fcgid/mod_fcgid.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/mod_fcgid/mod_fcgid.c?rev=797603r1=797602r2=797603view=diff
concerns?
Currently, starting httpd as non-root with mod_fcgid loaded fails unless
User/Group are set to the active User/Group. Normally, httpd modules don't
try to set ownership of objects to the specified User/Group unless starting
as root. Thus, httpd.conf can contain reasonable User/Group settings
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:56:42AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Currently, starting httpd as non-root with mod_fcgid loaded fails unless
User/Group are set to the active User/Group. Normally, httpd modules don't
try to set ownership of objects to the specified User/Group unless starting
as root
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:56:42AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Currently, starting httpd as non-root with mod_fcgid loaded fails unless
User/Group are set to the active User/Group. Normally, httpd modules
don't
try to set
overlap between
the version numbers in play here.
Basically my question boils down to this: do we work first on moving
mod_fcgid into httpd trunk, or work on it first as a standalone product?
Or asking for an fcgid branch? You can do whatever you like in the sandbox
including preparing a 2.2
Chris Darroch wrote:
* use the httpd/mod_fcgid subtree for bug fix releases of mod_fcgid
(retain compatibility with httpd 2.0/2.2 as well as
existing mod_fcgid configurations)
I see where you're going with this, and I like it. It means
that for the time being, we just ignore
Chris Darroch wrote:
I see where you're going with this, and I like it. It means
that for the time being, we just ignore the incomplete autoconf/build
stuff in mod_fcgid's sandbox.
FWIW, httpd/mod_ftp/ has a build schema that can literally be dropped
on top of an httpd source tree, or run
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Chris Darroch chr...@pearsoncmg.comwrote:
Hi --
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Many people use mod_fcgid on Apache 2.0/2.2. The message should be that
mod_fcgid development has moved to the ASF, and existing users are not being
left behind in the transition. So
Hi --
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Many people use mod_fcgid on Apache 2.0/2.2. The message should be that
mod_fcgid development has moved to the ASF, and existing users are not
being left behind in the transition. So a branch for mod_fcgid 2.x is
maintained for httpd 2.0/2.2 users just as our own
Chris Darroch wrote:
It's also worth assuming, I think, that mod_fcgid isn't going
to be back-ported and included in the 2.2.x distribution anytime soon.
Given that, I suppose we should look at continuing a 2.x branch
for mod_fcgid (with improved autoconf magic, obviously), at least
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think most of the stuff in NOTICE is documentation that belongs
in README. The only things we put in NOTICE files are copyright
or attribution lines required by the original copyright owners.
OK, thanks -- made a quick edit this morning.
Makefile and .deps should
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Chris Darroch chr...@pearsoncmg.comwrote:
I'm +1 on the idea of moving toward inclusion in httpd trunk
as a module, at least as a longer-term goal. My thoughts were:
- Start by branching httpd/mod_fcgid/branches/2.x/mod_fcgid based on
the current
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Done. I set all of Ryan Pan's commits to svn:author=pqf
(for consistency), loaded the whole thing under httpd/mod_fcgid
and fixed the eol-style to native.
Please relicense the directory and files first before making any
other changes.
Thanks! I think
On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Chris Darroch wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Done. I set all of Ryan Pan's commits to svn:author=pqf
(for consistency), loaded the whole thing under httpd/mod_fcgid
and fixed the eol-style to native.
Please relicense the directory and files first before making
be in people.apache.org:/home/chrisd/donations/
mod_fcgid now.
I used the default full cvs2svn conversion; if you want one
with just
the trunk and without the small number of CVS tags in the mod_fcgid
repository, let me know. There weren't any branches or anything too
complex in the SF repository
have it ready.
It should be in people.apache.org:/home/chrisd/donations/mod_fcgid now.
I used the default full cvs2svn conversion; if you want one with just
the trunk and without the small number of CVS tags in the mod_fcgid
repository, let me know. There weren't any branches or anything too
paperwork is done, so please
let us know when you have an export. I (or one of the other svnadmins)
will have to massage it a bit to prefix the sourceforge ids, so just
point us to the dump file when you have it ready.
It should be in people.apache.org:/home/chrisd/donations/mod_fcgid now.
I
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I ended up fixing all website generation to utf-8 -- I am surprised
that it lasted this long with just iso-8859-1.
Thanks -- looks good!
Yes, that is what I prefer as well. All paperwork is done, so please
let us know when you have an export. I (or one of the
On Jan 27, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Chris Darroch wrote:
The httpd-mod_fcgid.xml file is my first whack at the IP clearance
template.
I renamed this .xml.utf8 this morning because I realized it has some
non-ASCII UTF-8 character sequences in it. I don't know if those will
pass through the
Hi --
I wrote:
The httpd-mod_fcgid.xml file is my first whack at the IP clearance
template.
I renamed this .xml.utf8 this morning because I realized it has some
non-ASCII UTF-8 character sequences in it. I don't know if those will
pass through the Incubator's XML-to-HTML transformation
://people.apache.org/~chrisd/donations/mod_fcgid/
The httpd-mod_fcgid.xml file is my first whack at the IP clearance
template. You may want to adjust a few things:
1) For officer or member managing donation I put my name, but it
should perhaps be whoever commits to the Incubator SVN, for which
I lack
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
sounds great, the form is here;
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.xml
Good god is incubator/public/trunk/ a mess ;-)
OK, I'll take a whack at filling it out and post back the results --
might
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Sorry, let this thread continue too long, sorry I've been distracted.
+1; wrowe, sctemme, issac, rjung, trawick, lars, niq, covener, fielding,
jerenkrantz and chrisd.
and the support of Albert Lash, Brian Akins and Brian McCallister.
The vote passes; next step
Chris Darroch wrote:
Thanks! Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help
with the IP statement -- drafting, collating email message references,
etc. IIRC it's the PMC which has to submit, but I'm happy to do some
scut work beforehand if it's useful.
sounds great, the form is
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
Sorry, let this thread continue too long, sorry I've been distracted.
+1; wrowe, sctemme, issac, rjung, trawick, lars, niq, covener
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
+/-1
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
Unless I missed a -1, that looked like a lot of +1s to me ... is
there a standard length
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and
offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
+/-1
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1
S.
--
Sander Temme
scte...@apache.org
PGP FP: 51B4 8727
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and
offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
+/-1
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1
-BEGIN
On 12.01.2009 04:53, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
+/-1
[+1] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
On Jan 11, 2009 10:53pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
+/-1
[+1] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
And Thanks! to the mod_fcgid author
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
+/-1
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht
l...@eilebrecht.net
traw...@gmail.com wrote:
[+1] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1
And Thanks! to the mod_fcgid author and contributors!
+1 to that, too.
--
Nick Kew
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
On 1/11/09 10:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
[+1] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
And as others have already expressed, many thanks to Ryan and everyone
else involved.
Chris.
--
GPG
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:59 PM, traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2009 10:53pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
+/-1
[+1] Accept
+1
Roy
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1.
Thanks. -- justin
11, 2009 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: Transfer Patch Rights for mod_fcgid ASF
Chris Darroch wrote:
pqf wrote:
Now both authors have subscribe this maillist and claimed to transfer
all rights to the patch
to the Apache Software Foundation, is it OK? Can we move forward now?
Excellent question
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
+/-1
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
[+1] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
from me
+1
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
+/-1
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Albert Lash albert.l...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Based on the enthusiasm of the module authors to adopt the AL and offer
the mod_fcgid code to the httpd community, please vote
Chris Darroch wrote:
pqf wrote:
Now both authors have subscribe this maillist and claimed to transfer
all rights to the patch
to the Apache Software Foundation, is it OK? Can we move forward now?
Excellent question -- it would seem we have resolved the outstanding
issues here, so what
Tim Jensen wrote:
I am new to the list. Love apache. It has served me well for over
a decade. Keep up the great work.
I had previously contributed a patch to the mod_fcgid module
whose ownership is being transfered to ASF. As author of my
minor little patch to mod_fcgid I gladly transfer
pqf wrote:
Now both authors have subscribe this maillist and claimed to transfer all
rights to the patch
to the Apache Software Foundation, is it OK? Can we move forward now?
Excellent question -- it would seem we have resolved the outstanding
issues here, so what is the next step? If
Hello,
I am new to the list. Love apache. It has served me well for over
a decade. Keep up the great work.
I had previously contributed a patch to the mod_fcgid module
whose ownership is being transfered to ASF. As author of my
minor little patch to mod_fcgid I gladly transfer all rights
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:05 AM
Subject: Transfer Patch Rights for mod_fcgid ASF
Hello,
I am new to the list. Love apache. It has served me well for over
a decade. Keep up the great work.
I had previously contributed a patch to the mod_fcgid module
whose
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
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
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
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
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
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
/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
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
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
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
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)
: 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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
On Dec 10, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 10, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
It's unfortunate there's no clear copyright statement, but would it
not be reasonable to assume Copyright Pan Qingfeng and deal with
him?
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
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
On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
It's unfortunate there's no clear copyright statement, but would it
not be reasonable to assume Copyright Pan Qingfeng and deal with him?
Contact other contributors as a courtesy, but not let it worry us if
some of them prove uncontactable, only if
On Dec 10, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
It's unfortunate there's no clear copyright statement, but would it
not be reasonable to assume Copyright Pan Qingfeng and deal with him?
Contact other contributors as a courtesy, but not let it worry
Hi --
As Paul Querna noted recently, some folks are using mod_fcgid
these days instead of mod_fastcgi, in part because it was (I believe)
the first of the two to work with httpd 2.2. Unfortunately, the
original developer of mod_fcgid, Pan Qingfeng, has largely moved on
to other things.
He
On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Chris Darroch wrote:
One key question I have (jumping ahead a little) is whether
everyone who has contributed a patch to the project needs to contacted
and a signed contributor agreement recovered from them. If not,
then I
would think that we'd just need a CLA
, and re-purposed elsewhere, it was not licensed.
If this is based on the original mod_fastcgi license, perhaps incorporating
the modern, appropriately licensed flavor and then layering the mod_fcgid
improvements on top of that would make the most sense?
flavor and then layering the mod_fcgid
improvements on top of that would make the most sense?
Ok, this does get worse; the license cited above applies to to the fcgi
package itself.
The mod_fastcgi implementation has the following terms;
Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute
to be able to fold in the code, we would need iCLAs from everyone
who submitted a patch allowing us to relicense their bits as AL instead
of GPL... similar to what we needed to do when SpamAssassin come on board.
Is it?
It is. AFAIK, mod_fcgid is a clean room implementation of the FastCGI
Hi,
Chris Darroch wrote:
Hi --
As Paul Querna noted recently, some folks are using mod_fcgid
these days instead of mod_fastcgi, in part because it was (I believe)
the first of the two to work with httpd 2.2. Unfortunately, the
original developer of mod_fcgid, Pan Qingfeng, has largely
with the author -- mod_fcgid
is a completely separate implementation from mod_fastcgi. I don't
know of any generally shared or derived code, but I will check.
The exception, I think, might be the FCGI protocol itself, which
specifies the byte-level structure of the headers that are passed
back
.
So far as I know -- I'll check with the author -- mod_fcgid
is a completely separate implementation from mod_fastcgi. I don't
know of any generally shared or derived code, but I will check.
The exception, I think, might be the FCGI protocol itself, which
specifies the byte-level
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:30:54 -0800
Chris Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He and I have been in touch lately about long-term maintenance
of mod_fcgid. (We've helped by a colleague of mine who can translate
fluently between Chinese and English, although Pan Qingfeng's English
is quite good
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 21:56:43 +
Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have a complete list of people who have made nontrivial
contributions, such that their IP might be affected?
Ignore that - I meant to chop those lines when I read (as opposed
to skimmed) the following paragraphs.
To inform you.
We at http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8901 made a binary
available which works with mod-perl and mod-perl etc.
Steffen
601 - 700 of 704 matches
Mail list logo
