Expat in tree (was: Re: [PATCH] Expat patch #3)

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

Bill Stoddard wrote:
> 
> Guess I'll start paying more attention to posts in the future...
> 
> This patch turned from adding code to the Configuration script to
> support Expat, to actually putting Expat into the code base. In your
> commit, you state "Apache elects to use the MPL license". I don't recall
> any such decision. The MPL 1.0 is not acceptable to anyone who has a
> patent portfolio. I don't think Roy can work with MPL V1.0 either. I'm
> inclined to veto this now, but I'll hold off, because I hope I'm just
> missing some of the facts.

To answer your concern, and the same that Ken expressed in a different
thread:

I believed that I had made myself clear when I first began the whole
thread: Expat would be in the code base, but could be easily *removed*
by redistributors (such as IBM) who have issues with the MPL. The MPL is
compatible with the Apache license. The reason for the "election" is to
clarify that Apache was *NOT* using the GPL (which is horribly
incompatible). In this sense, it wasn't really a "decision" per se.

There is a huge difference between providing a hook for Apache to
include Expat (pretty useless, IMO) and having it in the distribution by
default. If it isn't in the distribution, then people really can't count
on its presence; all of the work that I just did would just as well be
backed out because it would be quite useless.

I just reviewed by initial post about adding Expat (on 4/15), and I
think I was pretty clear that putting Expat in the tree was the intent
(and people can remove if it causes problems for their distribution).

Ken had a good point about whether it was under MPL 1.0 or MPL 1.1. MPL
allows us to upgrade to 1.1 if we so choose. Currently, it is under 1.0.
MPL 1.1 has not yet been published (only NPL 1.1). If we *must* back it
out until MPL 1.1 is posted, then we can. I prefer not to, and I would
definitely like to see it back in when MPL 1.1 is posted.

Also: note this addresses Ralf's question about the optional nature of
the Expat source. Configure must always be able to handle its absence
because certain distributors may need to remove it.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: Expat in tree

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

Bill Stoddard wrote:
> ...
> > Ken had a good point about whether it was under MPL 1.0 or MPL 1.1. MPL
> > allows us to upgrade to 1.1 if we so choose. Currently, it is under 1.0.
> > MPL 1.1 has not yet been published (only NPL 1.1). If we *must* back it
> > out until MPL 1.1 is posted, then we can. I prefer not to, and I would
> > definitely like to see it back in when MPL 1.1 is posted.
>
> We need to back it out. Ideally, it would be best if  Expat could be
> released under either the Apache license or your mod_dav license.
> Releasing under MPL (or is it NPL?) 1.1 would probably work as because
> it limits the scope of the patent license to the actual code covered by
> the MPL.

I've sent mail to Jim Clark. I don't know what his position is, but it
would certainly be cool if he said, "what the heck. sure... use the
Apache license."  Never know unless you ask :-)

> > Also: note this addresses Ralf's question about the optional nature of
> > the Expat source. Configure must always be able to handle its absence
> > because certain distributors may need to remove it.
> This is just a bad thing to do. All for one and one for all. Requiring
> people to tease out 'incompatable' code is senseless. What will happen
> when XML calls get embedded into the main server and these calls are
> required to make the server function? If the function is available, it
> WILL be used in ways that will render the server brain dead if you try
> to back them out.

True, and I have some ideas for resolving this. But I'll tackle that
later... This whole deal with Expat is really bumming me out.

> Sorry for not intuiting your intent earlier.

I should make you back out the code. :-)

> -1 on this patch.

I'll remove src/lib/expat/ but leave the rest in. This will happen later
tonite.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: Expat in tree (was: Re: [PATCH] Expat patch #3)

[Bill Stoddard <st...@raleigh.ibm.com>]

Greg Stein wrote:
> 
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> > Guess I'll start paying more attention to posts in the future...
> >
> > This patch turned from adding code to the Configuration script to
> > support Expat, to actually putting Expat into the code base. In your
> > commit, you state "Apache elects to use the MPL license". I don't recall
> > any such decision. The MPL 1.0 is not acceptable to anyone who has a
> > patent portfolio. I don't think Roy can work with MPL V1.0 either. I'm
> > inclined to veto this now, but I'll hold off, because I hope I'm just
> > missing some of the facts.
> 
> To answer your concern, and the same that Ken expressed in a different
> thread:
> 
> I believed that I had made myself clear when I first began the whole
> thread: Expat would be in the code base, but could be easily *removed*
> by redistributors (such as IBM) who have issues with the MPL. The MPL is
> compatible with the Apache license. 
No it isn't, because of the patent virus effect.

> The reason for the "election" is to
> clarify that Apache was *NOT* using the GPL (which is horribly
> incompatible). In this sense, it wasn't really a "decision" per se.
> 
> There is a huge difference between providing a hook for Apache to
> include Expat (pretty useless, IMO) and having it in the distribution by
> default. If it isn't in the distribution, then people really can't count
> on its presence; all of the work that I just did would just as well be
> backed out because it would be quite useless.
Yes, I agree. 

> 
> I just reviewed by initial post about adding Expat (on 4/15), and I
> think I was pretty clear that putting Expat in the tree was the intent
> (and people can remove if it causes problems for their distribution).
> 
> Ken had a good point about whether it was under MPL 1.0 or MPL 1.1. MPL
> allows us to upgrade to 1.1 if we so choose. Currently, it is under 1.0.
> MPL 1.1 has not yet been published (only NPL 1.1). If we *must* back it
> out until MPL 1.1 is posted, then we can. I prefer not to, and I would
> definitely like to see it back in when MPL 1.1 is posted.
We need to back it out. Ideally, it would be best if  Expat could be
released under either the Apache license or your mod_dav license.
Releasing under MPL (or is it NPL?) 1.1 would probably work as because
it limits the scope of the patent license to the actual code covered by
the MPL.
 
> 
> Also: note this addresses Ralf's question about the optional nature of
> the Expat source. Configure must always be able to handle its absence
> because certain distributors may need to remove it.
This is just a bad thing to do. All for one and one for all. Requiring
people to tease out 'incompatable' code is senseless. What will happen
when XML calls get embedded into the main server and these calls are
required to make the server function? If the function is available, it
WILL be used in ways that will render the server brain dead if you try
to back them out.

Sorry for not intuiting your intent earlier.

-1 on this patch.


-- 
Bill Stoddard
stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com