Re: Apache license and GZIP

[TO...@aol.com]

In a message dated 99-10-13 19:52:27 EDT, you write:

> gstein@lyra.org ( Greg Stein writes... )
> If you aren't providing patches, then just what the hell *ARE* you
> trying to do?

Who said there wasn't still a chance it could all be yours for the having?

The discussion turned sour on the initial response from the bouncer
at the front door named Ken Coar and it just went further south after
that. I am glad the ApacheBench typo is fixed. That really was the
point of the original post. It was not a 'product announcement'. As Peter
Cranstone said... if we really were going to make an official product
announcement it certainly wouldn't be here.

I, for one, have found out about a great many 'products' on this forum
and I don't see anyone pouncing on IBM for hyping their server in the
midst of the compression discussion or the WML Barcelona folks pitching 
their paid classes in Spain right under your noses. It doesn't bother
me. It's the nature of the beast. People like to share information and
I would hate to have to draw a legal distinction between a 'product
announcement' and a simple urge to let other people know about
something that might just help them out.

>  This is not a forum to discuss *your* products. This is about Apache.

You are 100 percent correct. We have known about the ability to increase
Apache throughput upwards of 170 percent for 5 months now. If we were 
aching to come here and 'talk about our products' we would have done so
long before I found what I thought was a bug in YOUR BenchMark.

I guess what you don't get is that we have not as yet rejected the idea
that perhaps 'our' product could become 'your' product. The discussion 
has not been allowed to progress to that point in a calm manner as of yet.

>  And despite what you say, Kevin's first post was very much a post that
>  said, "wow! look at how cool our product is! everybody should use this!"
>  With all those damn CAPITALS, that is exactly what it was. Discussions
>  in this forum generally don't use the format that he initially posted with.
>  
>  Now, you did mention two things:
>  1) patch ab.c to deal with compressed content. The group here doesn't
>  care to deal with that, but instead wants to look at bytes/sec rates
>  rather than pages/sec. If you want to expand ab.c to deal with
>  decompressing, then PROVIDE PATCHES. 

I like all your CAPITALS there in the last sentence. It really does
help me see where you place your conversational emphasis. Thanks.

> Otherwise, shut up.

Charming. OK... here is the deal... nuts and bolts time...

The RCTPDS online compression server is not part of Apache
at all. It is an external module that works with any Server and it
just happens to work really well in conjunction with Apache.

It could become part of Apache and maybe it will... but not until
someone with the ability to make some intelligent reponses
answers a few questions...

1. Is there anything stopping a series of patches that contain
a highly, highly optimized version of the GNU based ZLIB/GZIP 
code from actually being included in a source release of Apache?

If there is then the discussion ends rights here and Apache will
never be a server that is capable of compressing anything on its own
without the need for a client piece on the browser side. 

2. If Microsoft and Netscape have found a way to support both
compress and gzip in native mode and yet I am still not allowed
to download their source code there must be something I just
don't get when reading the GNU license. When is a license
not a license anymore? If ignoring the legalities is the current
trend then is that what the Apache Group is ready to do as
well? Inquiring minds want to know.

Since Apache is already 'public' and the GNU debacle is that all of your code
has to become public I really don't see a problem here. Our compression 
server(s)
use many many different compression algorithms but somehow
I think the only thing you would want is GZIP so your exact stance
on this issue would be appreciated.

3. Based on 1 and 2... Is it even possible to proceed here? 
( from APL point of view? )

4. I have my own version of ApacheBench that already has full
RFC compliant support for both Content-encoding and Transfer-encoding
in it. Apache's ability to send both at the same time is totally broken
but at least you can Bench one or the other. Any takers?

Unless someone says 'Yes we want that'... it will not be sent.
I won't waste your time or mine. You can read about compressed
content in the newspapers sometime down the road.

5. What is the short/long term prognosis on the ability for 
someone who contributes code to this non-profit organization
being able to get some tax credit at least? Is anyone working
on this? ASF websites seem to indicate that it will be possible
but no one has gotten around to doing anything about it yet.
True or False?

Kevin Kiley
CTO, Remote Communications.com
http://www.RemoteCommunications.com
RCTPDS real-time online document compression server
http://www.rctp.com

Re: Apache license and GZIP

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

TOKILEY@aol.com wrote:
> 
> The discussion turned sour on the initial response from the bouncer
> at the front door named Ken Coar and it just went further south after
> that.

AFAICS, the sourness is just that you don't want to send a
'diff -u' output.  I don't know why.

You want us to consider enabling ab to deal with compressed
content, send a patch for consideration.
-- 
#ken    P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation  <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://ASFD.MeepZor.Com/>

Re: Apache license and GZIP

[Peter Galbavy <Pe...@knowledge.com>]

On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 11:13:57PM +0200, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Why ask us to ask when you want to give ? Just mail a URL or the patches,
> solicit them. In the last few months we have seen about 20 odd patches on
> this list. Some really cool (say the novell code). 

Because the guy(s) want approval for their idea. They do not want
to contribute code, but instead be able to say to their source of
money (investors, sales whatever) that their commercial product is
approved by Apache developers. This, IMHO, is wrong.

I agree wih all those that have been saying "show us the code".

Regards,
-- 
Peter Galbavy
Knowledge Matters Ltd
http://www.knowledge.com/

Re: Apache license and GZIP

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>]

> 1. Is there anything stopping a series of patches that contain
> a highly, highly optimized version of the GNU based ZLIB/GZIP 
> code from actually being included in a source release of Apache?

To the best of my knowledge, ZLib was under a more 'reasonable' licence
(from an apache licence point of view) that pure GPL. In fact to my
eye it looks just like the apache licence. See below.

So that is one, very large, stumbling block removed.
 
> 2. If Microsoft and Netscape have found a way to support both
> compress and gzip in native mode and yet I am still not allowed
> to download their source code there must be something I just
> don't get when reading the GNU license. When is a license
> not a license anymore? If ignoring the legalities is the current
> trend then is that what the Apache Group is ready to do as
> well? Inquiring minds want to know.

You can implement what zlib does based on rfc1950, 1951 and 1952. The RFC
process includes safeguards as to allow for implemenation without touching
on any major IP stumbling block, commercial or open source.

Also, zlib licence does allow for '2'.
 
> 3. Based on 1 and 2... Is it even possible to proceed here? 
> ( from APL point of view? )

See above :-)
 
> 4. I have my own version of ApacheBench that already has full
> RFC compliant support for both Content-encoding and Transfer-encoding
> in it. Apache's ability to send both at the same time is totally broken
> but at least you can Bench one or the other. Any takers?

Cool... but

Why ask us to ask when you want to give ? Just mail a URL or the patches,
solicit them. In the last few months we have seen about 20 odd patches on
this list. Some really cool (say the novell code). 

Or put a pointer the module in modules.apache.org for a starters, ir send
the patch to the list (if it is big, use a URL).

Even if it is too experimental, or affects too much core code, there are
also things like the contrib section for those willing to go with the
latest or most specialist hacks.

Show your code and if it is good; it will survice and evolve :-)

Dw

/export/BSD/freebsd/4.0-supped/usr/src/lib/libz/zlib.h:

  zlib.h -- interface of the 'zlib' general purpose compression library
  version 1.1.1, Feb 27th, 1998

  Copyright (C) 1995-1998 Jean-loup Gailly and Mark Adler

  This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
  warranty.  In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
  arising from the use of this software.

  Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
  including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
  freely, subject to the following restrictions:

  1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
     claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
     in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
     appreciated but is not required.
  2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
     misrepresented as being the original software.
  3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
..