Re: Apachelounge problem

[Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>]

[Apologies for breaking threading.  Posting from the laptop
was refused due to SORBS, so this is cut&paste]

On 19 Aug 2007, at 00:40, Steffen wrote:

> Thanks for the answer.

> I shall keep the site down, I am very disappointed and I feel threatened
> by you for legal stuff.

That is just a huge overreaction.  When in a hole, stop digging.

I think Will's first post was ill-judged (see below), and your response
made some valid and justified points.  But what's said cannot be unsaid,
and Will has now tried to explain and mend fences.  For everyone's sakes,
please do the same.

> > I think what you've done for creating a user community around Apache
on
> > Win is great!  Please don't misunderstand that.

> > I've had to bring up this issue before, however, and it's very
disappointing
> > the message didn't get through.  And just had oral surgery Thursday,
so color
> > me cranky.

We're all human; we all make mistakes.  And we have misunderstandings.
Most of us get over them and get on with life.  And learn from them
(c.f. Davi's suggestion for the naming of RC tarballs).

> I feel some emotion in your message, so better that from now on, we
should
> not test any RC  anymore ?

> > Because I brought this up before, last year?


That could be reason to raise the matter and to be pissed off.  But not
IMHO in a public forum, and without prior discussion.  A private email
copied to the PMC rather than the public list, or a followup to
http://marc.info/?l=apache-httpd-dev&m=118683454928775&w=2
would seem to me more appropriate.


> > Since it isn't a release, you don't want to 'ship' it.

Was it clearly identified as release candidate for testing, or could it
have been mistaken for an official release?

******************************************************
[second post]

On 19 Aug 2007, at 02:46, Tom Donovan wrote:

> Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us that the
> Apache2 license protects "released" versions of Apache differently.

It doesn't.  It's a purely hypothetical case: someone finds a serious
problem with [foo]: for example, it stole SCO's intellectual property
(or should that be Timeline's, since they won their cases?)  SCO sues
for a billion dollars.  If [foo] is released, then it's clearly the
ASF's responsibility to defend it.  If not, there's a gray area:
ASF wouldn't want to be liable if [disgruntled IBM employee] commits a
big chunk of SCO code, and someone then releases that as an Apache product,
even as the ASF goes about removing the offending code.

My own view, which has no legal standing whatsoever, is that once something
has reached release-candidate, it's pretty much vanishingly unlikely that
the ASF would fail to stand by it, UNLESS a redistributor either
misrepresented it as a release or failed to take it down and publish a
notice after a problem was reported.

-- 
Nick Kew

Re: Apachelounge problem

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

There are 2 issues:

   o Making the test tarball of 2.2.5 available from a site
     outside of the ASF (potentially with no indication that
     it is not an official release).

   o The feather issue.

The latter can, and should, certainly be handled by the
ASF Public Relations Cmmt (press@apache.org)... I think
the former has been hashed out enough :)