-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Joe Orton [
Thanks for doing the research, Roy.
Yep, thanks from me too.
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:03:33PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Okay, let me put it in a different way. The alternatives are
1) retain the status quo, forbid
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:01:12AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:03:33PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Okay, let me put it in a different way. The alternatives are
1) retain the status quo, forbid distributing ssl binaries, and
include in our documentation that
Plüm wrote:
Von: Joe Orton
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:03:33PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Okay, let me put it in a different way. The alternatives are
1) retain the status quo, forbid distributing ssl binaries, and
include in our documentation that people in banned
countries
On Jun 7, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Given those constraints, I would prefer to separate the httpd releases
into a non-crypto package and a crypto overlay, similar to what most
of the packaging redistributors do (fink, apt, etc.).
Is the concern that we bundle mod_ssl with
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 07:00:29AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
Plüm wrote:
Von: Joe Orton
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:03:33PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Okay, let me put it in a different way. The alternatives are
1) retain the status quo, forbid distributing ssl binaries, and
Joe Orton wrote:
If you think there is some group of users who want to be able to
download the crypto-enabled httpd tarballs in $BANNEDCOUNTRY but
refuse to do so because they don't want to violate US export
regulations, then maybe that should be addressed separately.
The group of people
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 08:16:48AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The group of people who concern me are not those in T-8, they are those who
live in jurisdictions where *they* would be breaking local law by possessing
crypto. Leave them a) in the backwaters / b) in fear / c) in violation,
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Colm MacCarthaigh
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 08:16:48AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The group of people who concern me are not those in T-8,
they are those who
live in jurisdictions where *they* would be breaking local
law by possessing
On 6/1/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
One thing that seems odd, it looks like Makefile.win is still copying
docs/conf/httpd-win.conf to conf/httpd.conf.default, isn't the goal of
the previous changes to get a massaged version of httpd-std.conf.in
On 6/8/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plüm wrote:
Von: Joe Orton
I don't see why it's necessary for the ASF to be in
the business of distributing binaries; letting other people assume the
technical and legal responsibilites for doing that seems reasonable.
Ahhh, the preface
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
What's next, do we start stripping patented methods from our tarball
and making that available too?
Uhm which patent *encumbered* methods?
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:01:16PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
What's next, do we start stripping patented methods from our tarball
and making that available too?
Uhm which patent *encumbered* methods?
If I were to identify any or perform a patent
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Just curious: does anybody in that boat actually think that anything
we httpd-ers could do with packaging httpd (binaries, SSL,etc.) would
conceivably compete with what our employers are providing? (I find
that preposterous personally)
rofl - no.
I will say this; the
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Suffice it to say that even a cursory glance at a patents register would
likely reveal many ludicrous patents which httpd may infringe.
Yup; if the claimant to any such -legitimate- patent comes knocking, it *will*
be removed from svn and the project, in case you had
This looks fine, but can you add a patch to the docs? The feature
isn't useful if nobody knows it's there.
Thanks,
-wsv
On May 30, 2006, at 4:30 PM, olivier Thereaux wrote:
Hello,
This is a followup to a (very) old thread about mod_speling on the
httpd-dev list:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:16:02PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Suffice it to say that even a cursory glance at a patents register
would likely reveal many ludicrous patents which httpd may infringe.
Yup; if the claimant to any such -legitimate- patent comes
On 6/8/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are quite a few reasonable alternative strategies for dealing with
that kind of scenario. Does the ASF have such a policy as a matter of
course, regardless of the severity of such an action?
As that hasn't happened yet, there is no
On 6/8/06, Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for doing the research, Roy.
Ditto.
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:03:33PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Okay, let me put it in a different way. The alternatives are
1) retain the status quo, forbid distributing ssl binaries, and
include
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:07:51AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 6/8/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are quite a few reasonable alternative strategies for dealing with
that kind of scenario. Does the ASF have such a policy as a matter of
course, regardless of the
On 06/08/2006 07:13 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I will say this; the people who are wildly waving their arms no more
binaries are the same people who, surprise, haven't contributed binaries
to httpd, at least not lately (little surprise).
This is true, but I do not think that people
^^^ see subject ^^^
There are quite a few reasonable alternative strategies for dealing with
that kind of scenario. Does the ASF have such a policy as a matter of
course, regardless of the severity of such an action?
really sort of off topic; yes the mechanisms to handle this have existed
Sorry, I did a poor job of explaining -- the binaries issue is about
openssl. The openssl issue is what required me to read the EAR
guidelines, but my response is based on what I learned about the
EAR in general.
The mere presence of mod_ssl source code appears to be sufficient to
make the
On 06/08/2006 11:47 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Sorry, I did a poor job of explaining -- the binaries issue is about
openssl. The openssl issue is what required me to read the EAR
No reason to say sorry. Thanks for your work on this issue.
The mere presence of mod_ssl source code appears to
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:47:59PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
If anyone can think of another option, I'd like to hear it before
proposing a vote.
Another option is that we could ask the ASF to formally consider upping
roots and changing jurisdiction. I have little doubt over what the
answer
On 6/8/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another option is that we could ask the ASF to formally consider upping
roots and changing jurisdiction. I have little doubt over what the
answer would be, but I'd prefer that we exhaust all of the alternative
options before doing anything
On Jun 8, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Another option is that we could ask the ASF to formally consider
upping
roots and changing jurisdiction. I have little doubt over what the
answer would be, but I'd prefer that we exhaust all of the alternative
options before doing anything
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
... The big deal is that 5D002
classification also means that it is illegal for the ASF to knowingly
allow anyone residing in, or a citizen of, the T-8 countries, or anyone
on the denied persons list, to even participate in our project,
let alone download packages,
Roy wrote...
The sane solution would be to convince the US government to remove encryption from the export control list, since that regulation has been totally ineffective. That is not likely to happen during this administration, though, and I don't think the ASF is allowed to lobby for it
28 matches
Mail list logo
