You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org> on 2002/08/03 02:06:43 UTC
Looking for some help developing a MPM
ok..
Ive just spent ~1 day bringing the state-threads MPM up to the current
apache level. now it does compile, but it is segfaulting.. so it isn't
'usable' per se..
I'd like to commit it as-is into the experimental MPM directory in the
hopes that other people can have a look at it and help me debug
it/getting it into a fit enough state so we can actually see if it is
worth taking further.
any volunteers ???
if so I'll add it, otherwise it will gather a bit of dust on my local
src tree.
you will have to have the state threads library installed on your
machine. http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=38507
regards
Ian
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Thom May <th...@planetarytramp.net>.
* Ian Holsman (ianh@apache.org) wrote :
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >>From: Ian Holsman [mailto:ianh@apache.org]
> >>
> >>Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >>
> >>>Before you commit, 2 quick questions. Did you take the MPM directly
> >>>from the Accelerating Apache Project and port it to the most recent
> >>>code? Does it still rely on the same State Threads library?
> >>>
> >>>If the answer to either of these is yes, then we need to seriously
> >>>consider the license implications. The State Threads library is
> >>
> >dual
> >
> >>>licensed MPL and GPL.
> >>>
> >>
> >>It makes use of the State Threads library, which you have to have
> >>installed on your system. I read this to be exactly the same as how we
> >>make use of the GDBM library (also GPL).
> >>
> >>I don't think this is a problem, but I am not a lawyer.
> >
> >
> >Personally, I would prefer to not have this in our tree if it requires a
> >GPL'ed library. I consider this different from GDBM, because there are
> >options for using apr-util's DB library without GDBM. I believe this is
> >also why this MPM wasn't committed when it was originally posted.
> >However, if the group wants it, I won't veto.
> >
>
> ok.. so it isn't a licencing issue then, it just a matter of personal
> taste.
> For my 2c's this is exactly like gdbm. you don't need to build with it,
> there are several viable MPM options, so no-one is forcing you to enable
> this.
>
>
> Does anyone else have their 2c's to throw into this?
FWIW, I agree entirely that this should be in tree - we're not forcing
people to use it, thus the library's license isn't particularily problematic.
Cheers,
-Thom
--
Thom May -> thom@planetarytramp.net
* mentor kisses willy
< willy> you may also wish to investigate .EXPORT_ALL_VARIABLES
* mentor performs fellatio on willy
* willy pushes mentor off
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Thom May <th...@planetarytramp.net>.
* Ryan Bloom (rbb@covalent.net) wrote :
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Cox [mailto:imajes@php.net]
> > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:36 AM
> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org; rbb@covalent.net
> > Subject: RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
> >
> > >
> > > Okay, but I have a question. From the GPL FAQ:
> > >
> > > Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to
> > > build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your
> program
> > > mean I have to GPL my program?
> > >
> > > A: Yes.
> > >
> > > If I re-word the question:
> > >
> > > Q: You have a GPL'ed library that I'd like to link with my code to
> > > build an MPM for Apache. Does the fact that I link with your
> program
> > > mean I have to GPL my MPM?
> > >
> > > A: I don't know, but the two questions look too close to identical
> for
> > > me.
> > >
> >
> > Q: Is the MPM for Apache Proprietary?
> >
> > A: No, because it's open source and free (?)
>
> True, but the FSF says the GPL and the ASF license aren't compatible, so
> I would assume that it may as well be proprietary in their mind.
As I understand it, this is the situation, yes.
However, since the state threads library is dual license, we can quite
happily ignore the GPL.
-Thom
--
Thom May -> thom@planetarytramp.net
"We shall not make Britain's mistakes. Too wise to try to rule the world,
we shall merely own it".
--Ludwell Denny
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Cox [mailto:imajes@php.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:36 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org; rbb@covalent.net
> Subject: RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
>
> >
> > Okay, but I have a question. From the GPL FAQ:
> >
> > Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to
> > build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your
program
> > mean I have to GPL my program?
> >
> > A: Yes.
> >
> > If I re-word the question:
> >
> > Q: You have a GPL'ed library that I'd like to link with my code to
> > build an MPM for Apache. Does the fact that I link with your
program
> > mean I have to GPL my MPM?
> >
> > A: I don't know, but the two questions look too close to identical
for
> > me.
> >
>
> Q: Is the MPM for Apache Proprietary?
>
> A: No, because it's open source and free (?)
True, but the FSF says the GPL and the ASF license aren't compatible, so
I would assume that it may as well be proprietary in their mind.
Ryan
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by James Cox <im...@php.net>.
>
> Okay, but I have a question. From the GPL FAQ:
>
> Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to
> build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program
> mean I have to GPL my program?
>
> A: Yes.
>
> If I re-word the question:
>
> Q: You have a GPL'ed library that I'd like to link with my code to
> build an MPM for Apache. Does the fact that I link with your program
> mean I have to GPL my MPM?
>
> A: I don't know, but the two questions look too close to identical for
> me.
>
Q: Is the MPM for Apache Proprietary?
A: No, because it's open source and free (?)
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
Okay, but I have a question. From the GPL FAQ:
Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to
build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program
mean I have to GPL my program?
A: Yes.
If I re-word the question:
Q: You have a GPL'ed library that I'd like to link with my code to
build an MPM for Apache. Does the fact that I link with your program
mean I have to GPL my MPM?
A: I don't know, but the two questions look too close to identical for
me.
IMHO, this does call the GDBM code into questions too.
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom
rbb@covalent.net rbb@apache.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:36 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
>
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I realize that there is a lot of questions over whether the ASF
> > license and the GPL are compatible, but the State-Threads library is
> > GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed. There are some members of the ASF board who
say
> > that they are compatible, there are some members who say they
aren't.
> > The FSF says the aren't. I believe that we are in murky waters with
an
> > MPM that MUST link to a GPL'ed library. Doesn't that mean that the
MPM
> > must also be GPL'ed. Isn't that why the GPL is a viral license????
>
> Okey, here's my take on this:
>
> The GPL has some interestingly applicable clauses:
> "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
> are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
>
> and
>
> "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on
> the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the
> Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does
> not bring the other work under the scope of this License."
>
> So I think it's quite clear that we are in no danger if we
> put the MPM into our repository, as long as it doesn't include
> any of the actual GPLed code.
>
> Here's the clause that makes the GPL viral, Ryan:
>
> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
> that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program
> or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to
> all third parties under the terms of this License."
>
> We're not doing anything even remotely resembling the above,
> so we're safe.
> --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Greg Ames wrote:
>
> As I recall, we didn't have a whole lot of interaction with
> Mike Abbott. It was sort of a drive-by code dump. My impression
> was that he was funded by SGI to work on Apache performance for
> a limited amount of time, and he chose not to spend much of that
> time on our mailing lists. I can't knock Mike's technical skills,
> but wish he would have spent a little more effort responding to our
> concerns.
Mike's was the '10X performance improvement' patch set. True enough,
ISTR, it was a fairly massive package, even though it came in five
or so pieces, and Mike was resistant to putting it into our code
style. (FirstBill *did* implement some of it, though.) And when
we didn't humbly take the gift, it got blasted all over the place
that we were snobs and someone started a message-writing campaign
trying to get us to accept it.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Greg Ames <gr...@apache.org>.
Brian Pane wrote:
> Was that a conscious decision on the part of the author? I.e.,
> did we ask him to consider re-licensing, which he rejected? Or
> was the possibility never explicitly discussed?
As I recall, we didn't have a whole lot of interaction with Mike Abbott. It was sort of a drive-by code dump. My impression was
that he was funded by SGI to work on Apache performance for a limited amount of time, and he chose not to spend much of that time
on our mailing lists. I can't knock Mike's technical skills, but wish he would have spent a little more effort responding to our
concerns.
Greg
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> >>>12. Will the ASF adopt the patches?
> >>>
> >>>We contributed the patches to the Apache Software Foundation but
the
> >>>
> >>>
> >ASF
> >
> >
> >>>has refused to include the patches in future releases of Apache/1.3
> >>>
> >>>
> >or
> >
> >
> >>>2.0, citing "unnecessary" typecasts and complication associated
with
> >>>
> >>>
> >the
> >
> >
> >>>warning-free 64-bit port, and incompatible license terms with the
> >>>state-threaded MPM.
> >>>
> >>>This means that the original author knew about the licensing
issues,
> >>>
> >>>
> >and
> >
> >
> >>>he has chosen NOT to re-license.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>That's being a bit hard Ryan.
> >>
> >>the library is based on NSPR, and would involve some work to remove
> >>
> >>
> >it.
> >
> >How is that being hard at all? The author has chosen not to
re-license.
> >He has perfectly valid technical reasons for not re-licensing, but it
is
> >still a decision that has been made.
> >
> >
>
> Was that a conscious decision on the part of the author? I.e.,
> did we ask him to consider re-licensing, which he rejected? Or
> was the possibility never explicitly discussed?
IIRC, we explained why the MPM couldn't go into the tree, namely the
license, and he walked away. There was a lot of other history behind
his walking away, but I do believe that the topic of re-licensing was
brought up. Remember that this project was sponsored by a company,
namely SGI, so they _may_ (I don't know for sure) have wanted to keep
the code GPL/MPL.
Ryan
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Brian Pane <br...@apache.org>.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>From: Ian Holsman [mailto:ianh@apache.org]
>>
>>Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is actually WHY I brought up the question to begin with. I
>>>
>>>
>hadn't
>
>
>>>planned to be involved with the discussion, but I did read the
>>>State-Threads MPM FAQ. From the FAQ:
>>>
>>>
>>>12. Will the ASF adopt the patches?
>>>
>>>We contributed the patches to the Apache Software Foundation but the
>>>
>>>
>ASF
>
>
>>>has refused to include the patches in future releases of Apache/1.3
>>>
>>>
>or
>
>
>>>2.0, citing "unnecessary" typecasts and complication associated with
>>>
>>>
>the
>
>
>>>warning-free 64-bit port, and incompatible license terms with the
>>>state-threaded MPM.
>>>
>>>This means that the original author knew about the licensing issues,
>>>
>>>
>and
>
>
>>>he has chosen NOT to re-license.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>That's being a bit hard Ryan.
>>
>>the library is based on NSPR, and would involve some work to remove
>>
>>
>it.
>
>How is that being hard at all? The author has chosen not to re-license.
>He has perfectly valid technical reasons for not re-licensing, but it is
>still a decision that has been made.
>
>
Was that a conscious decision on the part of the author? I.e.,
did we ask him to consider re-licensing, which he rejected? Or
was the possibility never explicitly discussed?
--Brian
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> From: Ian Holsman [mailto:ianh@apache.org]
>
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > This is actually WHY I brought up the question to begin with. I
hadn't
> > planned to be involved with the discussion, but I did read the
> > State-Threads MPM FAQ. From the FAQ:
> >
> >
> > 12. Will the ASF adopt the patches?
> >
> > We contributed the patches to the Apache Software Foundation but the
ASF
> > has refused to include the patches in future releases of Apache/1.3
or
> > 2.0, citing "unnecessary" typecasts and complication associated with
the
> > warning-free 64-bit port, and incompatible license terms with the
> > state-threaded MPM.
> >
> > This means that the original author knew about the licensing issues,
and
> > he has chosen NOT to re-license.
> >
>
> That's being a bit hard Ryan.
>
> the library is based on NSPR, and would involve some work to remove
it.
How is that being hard at all? The author has chosen not to re-license.
He has perfectly valid technical reasons for not re-licensing, but it is
still a decision that has been made.
Ryan
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> This is actually WHY I brought up the question to begin with. I hadn't
> planned to be involved with the discussion, but I did read the
> State-Threads MPM FAQ. From the FAQ:
>
>
> 12. Will the ASF adopt the patches?
>
> We contributed the patches to the Apache Software Foundation but the ASF
> has refused to include the patches in future releases of Apache/1.3 or
> 2.0, citing "unnecessary" typecasts and complication associated with the
> warning-free 64-bit port, and incompatible license terms with the
> state-threaded MPM.
>
> This means that the original author knew about the licensing issues, and
> he has chosen NOT to re-license.
>
That's being a bit hard Ryan.
the library is based on NSPR, and would involve some work to remove it.
from the discussion so far we are not even sure if linking GPL libraries
is allowed, and in fact may be currently in violation, we should really
have a clear statement on this, and remove the GPL-infected code if we
need to, as well as put something on the list saying that we can't
include anything with GPL licence (to stop all the patches we get asking
us to modify rewrite to accept mysql for instance)
> Ryan
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Ryan Bloom
> rbb@covalent.net rbb@apache.org
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: James Cox [mailto:imajes@php.net]
>>Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:39 AM
>>To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>Subject: RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
>>
>>May I be one to ask a stupid question:
>>
>>has anyone asked the author to relicense?
>>
>> -- james
>
>
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
This is actually WHY I brought up the question to begin with. I hadn't
planned to be involved with the discussion, but I did read the
State-Threads MPM FAQ. From the FAQ:
12. Will the ASF adopt the patches?
We contributed the patches to the Apache Software Foundation but the ASF
has refused to include the patches in future releases of Apache/1.3 or
2.0, citing "unnecessary" typecasts and complication associated with the
warning-free 64-bit port, and incompatible license terms with the
state-threaded MPM.
This means that the original author knew about the licensing issues, and
he has chosen NOT to re-license.
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom
rbb@covalent.net rbb@apache.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Cox [mailto:imajes@php.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:39 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
>
> May I be one to ask a stupid question:
>
> has anyone asked the author to relicense?
>
> -- james
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by James Cox <im...@php.net>.
May I be one to ask a stupid question:
has anyone asked the author to relicense?
-- james
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
> that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program
> or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to
> all third parties under the terms of this License."
> We're not doing anything even remotely resembling the above,
> so we're safe.
What about the clause about executables? After all, the GPL goes to the
trouble to say that if you want people to be able link with your code
without their code being GPL, you should use LGPL and not GPL...
Not that I wouldn't like to believe we were safe. :)
--Cliff
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> BTW, I realize that there is a lot of questions over whether the ASF
> license and the GPL are compatible, but the State-Threads library is
> GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed. There are some members of the ASF board who say
> that they are compatible, there are some members who say they aren't.
> The FSF says the aren't. I believe that we are in murky waters with an
> MPM that MUST link to a GPL'ed library. Doesn't that mean that the MPM
> must also be GPL'ed. Isn't that why the GPL is a viral license????
Okey, here's my take on this:
The GPL has some interestingly applicable clauses:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
and
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on
the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the
Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does
not bring the other work under the scope of this License."
So I think it's quite clear that we are in no danger if we
put the MPM into our repository, as long as it doesn't include
any of the actual GPLed code.
Here's the clause that makes the GPL viral, Ryan:
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program
or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to
all third parties under the terms of this License."
We're not doing anything even remotely resembling the above,
so we're safe.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
RE: Using GPL Libraries ( was Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM)
Posted by James Cox <im...@php.net>.
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> > As I read the question is can we link-to/use a GPL library. I think that
> > the answer to this should be the same regardless if we are using it in a
> > small un-important spot, or in the main section of some
> > mission-critical. (you either can or you can't)
>
> You're right. We should not provide support for GDBM, because it's GPL
> and not LGPL as I would have assumed. So apr_dbm_gdbm.c should also be
> GPL, which means APR-util as a whole would have to be GPL, etc.
>
> It's starting to look like we need a separate repository for "addons" that
> are GPL-infected and thus must be distributed separately and downloaded
> separately.
>
Why?
from the PHP experience I have, we only include GPL and other modules that
are not PHP in our repository if we feel that the development is very borked
or stagnant. I don't think having a repository for addons is a good idea, as
that is the equivalent of forking.
-- james
Re: Using GPL Libraries ( was Re: Looking for some help developing
a MPM)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> As I read the question is can we link-to/use a GPL library. I think that
> the answer to this should be the same regardless if we are using it in a
> small un-important spot, or in the main section of some
> mission-critical. (you either can or you can't)
You're right. We should not provide support for GDBM, because it's GPL
and not LGPL as I would have assumed. So apr_dbm_gdbm.c should also be
GPL, which means APR-util as a whole would have to be GPL, etc.
It's starting to look like we need a separate repository for "addons" that
are GPL-infected and thus must be distributed separately and downloaded
separately.
This $!@% sucks.
--Cliff
Using GPL Libraries ( was Re: Looking for some help developing a
MPM)
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:jwoolley@virginia.edu]
>>
>>On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BTW, I realize that there is a lot of questions over whether the ASF
>>>license and the GPL are compatible, but the State-Threads library is
>>>GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed.
>>
>>That's true. And on its own, you're right, it would mean we could not
>>distribute a state threads mpm under an apache license. But the state
>>threads library is dual licensed MPL *or* GPL. I'm reading the MPL
>
> but am
>
>>as yet unclear as to whether it's equally viral.
>
>
> Okay, so fair warning, dual-licensing ALWAYS confuses the hell out of
> me.
>
> I believe that everybody is willing to accept MPL licensed code, but I'm
> not sure how that works. If you commit GPL'ed code to that library,
> that is legal, because the library is under the GPL. But then, doesn't
> the whole library have to become GPL'ed? I always thought that with a
> dual-licensed piece of code, you are basically allowed to commit the
> code using either library, and you are allowed to use the code with
> either library. But if that is the case, then why bother with both
> licenses, just use the least restrictive license and only have a single
> license.
>
> Ryan
>
>
Changing the topic.
As I read the question is can we link-to/use a GPL library.
I think that the answer to this should be the same regardless if we are
using it in a small un-important spot, or in the main section of some
mission-critical.
(you either can or you can't)
Using GPL Libraries ( was Re: Looking for some help developing a
MPM)
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:jwoolley@virginia.edu]
>>
>>On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BTW, I realize that there is a lot of questions over whether the ASF
>>>license and the GPL are compatible, but the State-Threads library is
>>>GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed.
>>
>>That's true. And on its own, you're right, it would mean we could not
>>distribute a state threads mpm under an apache license. But the state
>>threads library is dual licensed MPL *or* GPL. I'm reading the MPL
>
> but am
>
>>as yet unclear as to whether it's equally viral.
>
>
> Okay, so fair warning, dual-licensing ALWAYS confuses the hell out of
> me.
>
> I believe that everybody is willing to accept MPL licensed code, but I'm
> not sure how that works. If you commit GPL'ed code to that library,
> that is legal, because the library is under the GPL. But then, doesn't
> the whole library have to become GPL'ed? I always thought that with a
> dual-licensed piece of code, you are basically allowed to commit the
> code using either library, and you are allowed to use the code with
> either library. But if that is the case, then why bother with both
> licenses, just use the least restrictive license and only have a single
> license.
>
> Ryan
>
>
Changing the topic.
As I read the question is can we link-to/use a GPL library.
I think that the answer to this should be the same regardless if we are
using it in a small un-important spot, or in the main section of some
mission-critical.
(you either can or you can't)
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:jwoolley@virginia.edu]
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > BTW, I realize that there is a lot of questions over whether the ASF
> > license and the GPL are compatible, but the State-Threads library is
> > GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed.
>
> That's true. And on its own, you're right, it would mean we could not
> distribute a state threads mpm under an apache license. But the state
> threads library is dual licensed MPL *or* GPL. I'm reading the MPL
but am
> as yet unclear as to whether it's equally viral.
Okay, so fair warning, dual-licensing ALWAYS confuses the hell out of
me.
I believe that everybody is willing to accept MPL licensed code, but I'm
not sure how that works. If you commit GPL'ed code to that library,
that is legal, because the library is under the GPL. But then, doesn't
the whole library have to become GPL'ed? I always thought that with a
dual-licensed piece of code, you are basically allowed to commit the
code using either library, and you are allowed to use the code with
either library. But if that is the case, then why bother with both
licenses, just use the least restrictive license and only have a single
license.
Ryan
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> BTW, I realize that there is a lot of questions over whether the ASF
> license and the GPL are compatible, but the State-Threads library is
> GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed.
That's true. And on its own, you're right, it would mean we could not
distribute a state threads mpm under an apache license. But the state
threads library is dual licensed MPL *or* GPL. I'm reading the MPL but am
as yet unclear as to whether it's equally viral.
--Cliff
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
BTW, I realize that there is a lot of questions over whether the ASF
license and the GPL are compatible, but the State-Threads library is
GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed. There are some members of the ASF board who say
that they are compatible, there are some members who say they aren't.
The FSF says the aren't. I believe that we are in murky waters with an
MPM that MUST link to a GPL'ed library. Doesn't that mean that the MPM
must also be GPL'ed. Isn't that why the GPL is a viral license????
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom
rbb@covalent.net rbb@apache.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:jwoolley@virginia.edu]
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 8:39 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> > ok.. so it isn't a licencing issue then, it just a matter of
personal
> > taste. For my 2c's this is exactly like gdbm. you don't need to
build
> > with it, there are several viable MPM options, so no-one is forcing
you
> > to enable this. Does anyone else have their 2c's to throw into this?
>
> I'm of two minds on the matter... the part of me that's saying "it
doesn't
> really matter, it's like the gdbm support, so throw it in anyway" is
kind
> of winning out at the moment. But I'd like to hear another opinion or
> two...
>
> --Cliff
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> ok.. so it isn't a licencing issue then, it just a matter of personal
> taste. For my 2c's this is exactly like gdbm. you don't need to build
> with it, there are several viable MPM options, so no-one is forcing you
> to enable this. Does anyone else have their 2c's to throw into this?
I'm of two minds on the matter... the part of me that's saying "it doesn't
really matter, it's like the gdbm support, so throw it in anyway" is kind
of winning out at the moment. But I'd like to hear another opinion or
two...
--Cliff
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>From: Ian Holsman [mailto:ianh@apache.org]
>>
>>Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>>Before you commit, 2 quick questions. Did you take the MPM directly
>>>from the Accelerating Apache Project and port it to the most recent
>>>code? Does it still rely on the same State Threads library?
>>>
>>>If the answer to either of these is yes, then we need to seriously
>>>consider the license implications. The State Threads library is
>>
> dual
>
>>>licensed MPL and GPL.
>>>
>>
>>It makes use of the State Threads library, which you have to have
>>installed on your system. I read this to be exactly the same as how we
>>make use of the GDBM library (also GPL).
>>
>>I don't think this is a problem, but I am not a lawyer.
>
>
> Personally, I would prefer to not have this in our tree if it requires a
> GPL'ed library. I consider this different from GDBM, because there are
> options for using apr-util's DB library without GDBM. I believe this is
> also why this MPM wasn't committed when it was originally posted.
> However, if the group wants it, I won't veto.
>
ok.. so it isn't a licencing issue then, it just a matter of personal
taste.
For my 2c's this is exactly like gdbm. you don't need to build with it,
there are several viable MPM options, so no-one is forcing you to enable
this.
Does anyone else have their 2c's to throw into this?
--Ian
> Ryan
>
>
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> From: Ian Holsman [mailto:ianh@apache.org]
>
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Before you commit, 2 quick questions. Did you take the MPM directly
> > from the Accelerating Apache Project and port it to the most recent
> > code? Does it still rely on the same State Threads library?
> >
> > If the answer to either of these is yes, then we need to seriously
> > consider the license implications. The State Threads library is
dual
> > licensed MPL and GPL.
> >
> It makes use of the State Threads library, which you have to have
> installed on your system. I read this to be exactly the same as how we
> make use of the GDBM library (also GPL).
>
> I don't think this is a problem, but I am not a lawyer.
Personally, I would prefer to not have this in our tree if it requires a
GPL'ed library. I consider this different from GDBM, because there are
options for using apr-util's DB library without GDBM. I believe this is
also why this MPM wasn't committed when it was originally posted.
However, if the group wants it, I won't veto.
Ryan
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Before you commit, 2 quick questions. Did you take the MPM directly
> from the Accelerating Apache Project and port it to the most recent
> code? Does it still rely on the same State Threads library?
>
> If the answer to either of these is yes, then we need to seriously
> consider the license implications. The State Threads library is dual
> licensed MPL and GPL.
>
It makes use of the State Threads library, which you have to have
installed on your system. I read this to be exactly the same as how we
make use of the GDBM library (also GPL).
I don't think this is a problem, but I am not a lawyer.
> I have been unable to find the MPM on-line or the license that it is
> under.
>
The MPM itself is under the ASF Licence. (it has our standard ASF
licence on the top of each file, as well as a copyright of SGI's)
you can find the patch which this is based on @ aap.sf.net
> I just want to be sure that we don't commit something that shouldn't be
> in our CVS repo.
>
> Ryan
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Ryan Bloom
> rbb@covalent.net rbb@apache.org
>
>
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 05:47:17PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > Before you commit, 2 quick questions. Did you take the MPM directly
> > from the Accelerating Apache Project and port it to the most recent
> > code? Does it still rely on the same State Threads library? If the
> > answer to either of these is yes, then we need to seriously consider the
> > license implications. The State Threads library is dual licensed MPL
> > and GPL.
>
> Doh. We definitely need an answer on that, I agree. sigh
The version of expat which has been bundled with the 1.3 tree since 1999
is also dual-licensed MPL/GPL, is there really an issue here?
joe
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Before you commit, 2 quick questions. Did you take the MPM directly
> from the Accelerating Apache Project and port it to the most recent
> code? Does it still rely on the same State Threads library? If the
> answer to either of these is yes, then we need to seriously consider the
> license implications. The State Threads library is dual licensed MPL
> and GPL.
Doh. We definitely need an answer on that, I agree. sigh
--Cliff
RE: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
Before you commit, 2 quick questions. Did you take the MPM directly
from the Accelerating Apache Project and port it to the most recent
code? Does it still rely on the same State Threads library?
If the answer to either of these is yes, then we need to seriously
consider the license implications. The State Threads library is dual
licensed MPL and GPL.
I have been unable to find the MPM on-line or the license that it is
under.
I just want to be sure that we don't commit something that shouldn't be
in our CVS repo.
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom
rbb@covalent.net rbb@apache.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:jwoolley@virginia.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 6:26 PM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
>
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> > I'd like to commit it as-is into the experimental MPM directory in
the
> > hopes that other people can have a look at it and help me debug
> > it/getting it into a fit enough state so we can actually see if it
is
> > worth taking further.
> > any volunteers ???
>
> +1
Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> I'd like to commit it as-is into the experimental MPM directory in the
> hopes that other people can have a look at it and help me debug
> it/getting it into a fit enough state so we can actually see if it is
> worth taking further.
> any volunteers ???
+1