BTW: I also wrote the orig post that this is a reply to.
I'd like to respond to 2 lines from the original article:
"""OSI, which is more grounded in software, tends to take a conservative approach to trademarks and legal discussions, which makes communication difficult, Seidle said. But OSHWA does not want trademark or legal battles with anyone, Seidle said"
Our (OSI's) approach to trademarks is not a "conservative" one, but one required by simple trademark law. One might almost say, with equal validity, that OSI and the FSF approach to copyrights and licensing is a "conservative" one, as in being an approach that allows licensing to actually *mean* something. As an extreme example, allowing the use of a trademark "whilly-nilly", with no conditions or restraints, and no unacceptable uses, is certainly not conservative, but it also results in a worthless and, more important, meaningless trademark. If the trademark can be used on anything, then what does it actually mean? How does it relate any "message" to the end-user?
And secondly, OSI does not want trademark or legal battles with anyone else... Seidle certainly is not implying that OSI does, but some may misinterpret the statement to imply otherwise.
mod_ssl includes the 'force' option that bypasses the version check. Works like a dream and the version for 1.3.32 applies like butter to 1.3.33
Well, 1.3.32 was never really officially released
on
Apache 1.3.32 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Even though the 1.3.32 tarballs are available, it wasn't really officially released. The tarballs are placed there "early" so the mirrors can grab them and have them available before we release...
As Sander mentioned, 1.3.31 is NOT released. If it had been, you would have seen an announcement... Is being first to post such a big thing now that we don't even bother *checking* the facts?? Because of this totally mistaken idea, the tarballs on httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ have been removed, which means more work for those of us coordinating and testing the release. However, to avoid people running unofficial releases, this seems to be what we need to do. Depending on the viability of the 1.3.31 RELEASE CANDIDATE tarballs, 1.3.31 may be released (*really* released) in the next few days.
The difference here is that Geronimo peeps are taking that same code (knowingly) and claiming that it is ok to do what you described.
No, they are not. They are not doing it, if they are, it is not knowingly, and most certainly not with a FU attitude. And it's been stated time and time again that if such code is in geronimo, it will be removed.
When you get the facts straight, it's so much more boring.
JBoss has noticed similarities and has raised the issue (a second time) with Geronimo.
Minor nit: This is actually the first time this was raised directly. Early on, the ASF was contacted by JBoss simply to "remind" us that JBoss is covered under GPL and that any derived code could not be relicensed (under the Apache License). At the time, no real work on Geronimo had been done so that there was no actual code that could be shown to be similar. The above leaves the impression that the ASF had ignored a previous notice from JBoss, which is certainly not the case.
Your statement would be right on the mark, if it had the advantage of being based on fact. The "fix" you refer to is not, and was not, the actual correction, since the bug itself was more involved than that.
What they actually *did* do as well was not accept any A/UX specific patches for any GNU stuff. That was one of the big reasons for jagubox, was to provide a place for various ports, but mostly for the GNU stuff.
I will always have a fond place in my heart for A/UX. It was, after all, the first thing that made me "noted" among the 'Net community. Yeah, the Jim Jagielski of 'jagubox' is the same Jim Jagielski of Apache/ASF and 'jimjag' of/.
"Kee-rist, it's _not hard_ to run a hosting service, as long as you get your technology and TOS right"
Unfortunately, this is yet another one of those myths rampant nowadays. I've seen companies decide to get into the hosting business and have no idea what they are doing. They read a few books and decide that they are now fully qualified as web hosters. The fact is that although it may not be hard to start one, it is very tough to do it correctly. It's like saying it's not hard to win the Gold Medal, as long as you train and practise:)
Some of the blantant pitches for hosting services are pretty funny. They all claim superior services, no bandwidth limitations and excrementally low prices. This is all very similar to NASA's slogan of "Cheaper, Better, Faster" and we've all seen the results of that. Nowdays, the inside joke among the rank and file at NASA is "Cheaper, Better, Faster: Pick Any Two." Sometimes, you get what you pay for, and if you want quality service, you should be prepared to spend a little more. How many of us prefer hand-crafted microbrews to the factory-line suds out there, and are willing to pay for it? It's like someone who goes into a BMW dealership and asks why he should pay so much for a BWM when he can get a Yugo down the road for about $8k. The answer is easy: one's a BWM, and the other one isn't.
I especially like the postings from people who simply resell hosting from the Big Boys. "We're better than anyone else because we depend 100% on some other company to do your hosting for us." I'd prefer my provider with some clues, that you.:).
In many ways Jeff Bezos symbolizes the current public mindset of Internet companies: worth loads of money but profitless. As such I wasn't that upset with the selection, although there are lots more deserving people. But then last night (Tuesday) during the previews for 60 Minutes II they were "interviewing" Mr. Bezos about what the future of the Internet and technology was going to be... And that's when I thought "That's it, TIME did a real disservice to the 'Net." They were actually asking him stuff like "what's the next computer chip going to be like" as if he would have any idea. He may be a "good" business man or salesman, but he is NOT some expert on technology, Web/'Net or otherwise. And that's what he is being promoted as. Shame on you TIME, shame!
Some Apache related items are "important" enough that they deserve notice on the main/. page, instead of being placed in the Apache section. It's a judgement call, but I figured the increase, especially after last month's "decrease" warranted the article being front and center:)
Slashdot Mirror
BTW: I also wrote the orig post that this is a reply to.
I'd like to respond to 2 lines from the original article:
"""OSI, which is more grounded in software, tends to take a conservative approach to trademarks and legal discussions, which makes communication difficult, Seidle said. But OSHWA does not want trademark or legal battles with anyone, Seidle said"
Our (OSI's) approach to trademarks is not a "conservative" one, but one required by simple trademark law. One might almost say, with equal validity, that OSI and the FSF approach to copyrights and licensing is a "conservative" one, as in being an approach that allows licensing to actually *mean* something. As an extreme example, allowing the use of a trademark "whilly-nilly", with no conditions or restraints, and no unacceptable uses, is certainly not conservative, but it also results in a worthless and, more important, meaningless trademark. If the trademark can be used on anything, then what does it actually mean? How does it relate any "message" to the end-user?
And secondly, OSI does not want trademark or legal battles with anyone else... Seidle certainly is not implying that OSI does, but some may misinterpret the statement to imply otherwise.
mod_ssl includes the 'force' option that bypasses the version check. Works like a dream and the version for 1.3.32 applies like butter to 1.3.33
Even though the 1.3.32 tarballs are available, it wasn't really officially released. The tarballs are placed there "early" so the mirrors can grab them and have them available before we release...
Read all about it:
Apache 1.3.31 Announcement
As Sander mentioned, 1.3.31 is NOT released. If it had been, you would have seen an announcement... Is being first to post such a big thing now that we don't even bother *checking* the facts?? Because of this totally mistaken idea, the tarballs on httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ have been removed, which means more work for those of us coordinating and testing the release. However, to avoid people running unofficial releases, this seems to be what we need to do. Depending on the viability of the 1.3.31 RELEASE CANDIDATE tarballs, 1.3.31 may be released (*really* released) in the next few days.
The difference here is that Geronimo peeps are taking that same code (knowingly) and claiming that it is ok to do what you described.
No, they are not. They are not doing it, if they are, it is not knowingly, and most certainly not with a FU attitude. And it's been stated time and time again that if such code is in geronimo, it will be removed.
When you get the facts straight, it's so much more boring.
JBoss has noticed similarities and has raised the issue (a second time) with Geronimo.
Minor nit: This is actually the first time this was raised directly. Early on, the ASF was contacted by JBoss simply to "remind" us that JBoss is covered under GPL and that any derived code could not be relicensed (under the Apache License). At the time, no real work on Geronimo had been done so that there was no actual code that could be shown to be similar. The above leaves the impression that the ASF had ignored a previous notice from JBoss, which is certainly not the case.
Released at the same time was 2.0.48.
It was actually during the QA testing, using httpd-test, that we discovered the bug in 1.3.25 that resulted in 1.3.26
Sorry, I had assumed (mistakely I see) that you were actually *interested* in the whole issue.
But yes, sometimes mistakes are made. A fact I'm sure your parents are quite familiar with.
Your statement would be right on the mark, if it had the advantage of being based on fact. The "fix" you refer to is not, and was not, the actual correction, since the bug itself was more involved than that.
But thanks for playing! Better luck next time!
What they actually *did* do as well was not accept any A/UX specific patches for any GNU stuff. That was one of the big reasons for jagubox, was to provide a place for various ports, but mostly for the GNU stuff.
I will always have a fond place in my heart for A/UX. It was, after all, the first thing that made me "noted" among the 'Net community. Yeah, the Jim Jagielski of 'jagubox' is the same Jim Jagielski of Apache/ASF and 'jimjag' of /.
Oh the horror... the horror
Unfortunately, this is yet another one of those myths rampant nowadays. I've seen companies decide to get into the hosting business and have no idea what they are doing. They read a few books and decide that they are now fully qualified as web hosters. The fact is that although it may not be hard to start one, it is very tough to do it correctly. It's like saying it's not hard to win the Gold Medal, as long as you train and practise
I especially like the postings from people who simply resell hosting from the Big Boys. "We're better than anyone else because we depend 100% on some other company to do your hosting for us." I'd prefer my provider with some clues, that you.
Yep... it's pretty rare for it to return 0 ;)
In many ways Jeff Bezos symbolizes the current public mindset of Internet companies: worth loads of money but profitless. As such I wasn't that upset with the selection, although there are lots more deserving people. But then last night (Tuesday) during the previews for 60 Minutes II they were "interviewing" Mr. Bezos about what the future of the Internet and technology was going to be... And that's when I thought "That's it, TIME did a real disservice to the 'Net." They were actually asking him stuff like "what's the next computer chip going to be like" as if he would have any idea. He may be a "good" business man or salesman, but he is NOT some expert on technology, Web/'Net or otherwise. And that's what he is being promoted as. Shame on you TIME, shame!
Some Apache related items are "important" enough that they deserve notice on the main /. page, instead of being placed in the Apache section. It's a judgement call, but I figured the increase, especially after last month's "decrease" warranted the article being front and center :)