Apachelounge problems

Hello Steffen,

I'm a Tomcat committer but not part of the httpd project.
Nevertheless
as all projects we also need to control, how release
candidates get
distributed. On the one hand we want a lot of testers to
participate, on
the other hand we need to unambiguously tell people
downloading the
code, that it's a non-release.

After you wrote you feedback mail concerning test results
for 2.2.5 I
was curious and clicked on your download link. I remember
that I was
astonished, that the 2.2.5 download on that page was not
further
qualified as being pre-release, release candidate or
similar. It could
well be, that such an information would have been presented
to me, in
case I had tried to actually download, which I did not. But
at first
glance I could not see any information, that 2.2.5 wasn't
yet released.

Sometimes the problem is in the details. I hope you will
soon open up
your important community service at apachelounge again.

Regards,

Rainer

Steffen wrote:
>> The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more
territorial than 
>> legal to me. Just my 2c worth...
> 
> Tom, indeed that is  my feeling : territorial.
> 
> There is more, see my next post about the Apache
Feather I have to remove.
> 
> Steffen

I like to inform you all, just for the complete picture. 
There is more then
the RC issue in the other thread.

On request I have to remove the Feather, see the mail
below.

So other Apache Community sites are warned. And maybe
customer sites with
the Apache logo must be warned.

Till now I was thinking that we where  a friends Community
in sake of Open
Source.

Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that
ASF and/or
Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge.
And like Tom
said before: sounds a bit more territorial than legal   to
me. Maybe 
Covalent Technologies is also  trying to protect there
position as 
distributor ?

So I will keeping www.apachelounge.com down , I do not not
want to much
hassle to sort out  the issues addressed here.

The forum www.apachelounge.com/forum/ shall I keep up for
some time, so
users can read the posts.

Steffen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowerowe-clan.net>
To: "Steffen" <infoapachelounge.com>
Cc: <privatehttpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 03:19
Subject: ASF issues with your site

I'd like to bring one other issue to your attention for a
prompt resolution.

On the subject of the Apache mark, I note that your site
uses the ASF
feather.  Please note that this is the ASF's mark and cannot
be used
without explicit permission.  Also, you have used the Apache
name
without a clear disclaimer that your site is not affiliated
with the
Apache Software Foundation or the Apache httpd project.

If you would please remove the Apache feather, and indicate
the site is
not affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation nor the
Apache httpd
Server Project, I believe this would address all of the
Foundation's
concerns.

For example, if your donation banner read

"This site is not affiliated with the Apache Software
Foundation or
the Apache httpd Project.  The site is funded entirely by me
(Steffan).
By donating you will help keep this site alive and
well!"

it should clarify the second issue and avoid anyone
confusing your site
with the Foundation.

If you have any questions about the use of the feather or
the Apache
name, please pose them to our Public Relations Committee,
prcapache.org.
They are happy to answer any questions

Rainer,

The announcement states it clearly. I had a discussion with
Bill about 2.2.4 
too in january, and he agreed on this.

-------------

Apache 2.2.5 Win32 RC available

Apache 2.2.5 Win32 RC is now available for download here at
the Apache 
Lounge. It is build without any modification to the ASF
source and is 
expected soon to be released by ASF.

Download and Changelog at www.apachelounge.com/download/

Please report when you have issues with this new build.

-----------------

and on the download page:

Apache 2.2.5 RC with apr-1.2.9 apr-util-1.2.8
apr-iconv-1.2.0 openssl-0.9.8e 
zlib-1.2.3 :

------------------


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rainer Jung" <rainer.jungkippdata.de>
To: <devhttpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 11:38
Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems


> Hello Steffen,
>
> I'm a Tomcat committer but not part of the httpd
project. Nevertheless
> as all projects we also need to control, how release
candidates get
> distributed. On the one hand we want a lot of testers
to participate, on
> the other hand we need to unambiguously tell people
downloading the
> code, that it's a non-release.
>
> After you wrote you feedback mail concerning test
results for 2.2.5 I
> was curious and clicked on your download link. I
remember that I was
> astonished, that the 2.2.5 download on that page was
not further
> qualified as being pre-release, release candidate or
similar. It could
> well be, that such an information would have been
presented to me, in
> case I had tried to actually download, which I did not.
But at first
> glance I could not see any information, that 2.2.5
wasn't yet released.
>
> Sometimes the problem is in the details. I hope you
will soon open up
> your important community service at apachelounge
again.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
> Steffen wrote:
>>> The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit
more territorial than legal 
>>> to me. Just my 2c worth...
>>
>> Tom, indeed that is  my feeling : territorial.
>>
>> There is more, see my next post about the Apache
Feather I have to 
>> remove.
>>
>> Steffen
>
>
> 

On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 05:09:08PM -0500, William A. Rowe,
Jr. wrote:
> Hmmm... seems that - even though we've *repeated* this
multiple times,
> we have to state this again.  Contents of http://httpd.apache
.org/dev/dist/
> are *development* tarballs and not for any
distribution.

It's called "dist", clearly they are for any level
distribution anyone
feels like. Unless you want us to re-license!

> Since it's not an ASF release, *you* are absorbing all
the liability
> and risk that any released ASF package would carry. 
It's an
> apachelounge release, so you would personally answer to
any IP issues.
> Not smart.

Oh come on, our processes are better than that, people can
have a
reasonably degree of assurance that our trees are licensable
with the AL
at any given time.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key:
colm+pgpstdlib.net

On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 11:49:10AM +0200, Steffen wrote:
> Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling
that ASF and/or
> Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache
Lounge. 

You're wrong in that the ASF (and probably Covalent) are
groups of
people that don't act with a single concerted will. I have
no problem
with ApacheLounge. When I did windows dev, it was a great
help.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key:
colm+pgpstdlib.net

On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 06:31:01PM -0500, William A. Rowe,
Jr. wrote:
>  * does it correspond to the tag?
>  * is it correctly licensed?
>  * is it correctly packaged?
>  * are any additions that appear to have IP
encumbrances?
>  * does it build?
>  * does it run?
>  * does it pass the perl-framework regression tests?
> 
> Since it isn't a release, you don't want to 'ship' it.

Who are we to impose our practises on someone else?
ApacheLounge clearly
does *want* to ship it, as is manifestly evident by the fact
it does it
so regularly. ApacheLounge can use whatever aribtrary
criteria it
likes for creating its releases - as long as it makes sure
there is
no confusion that they are ASF releases.

The BSD ports trees regularly contain builds that don't meet
the above
btw. And I don't think I've *ever* come accross a Linux
package that
corresponded to the tag.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key:
colm+pgpstdlib.net

On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 09:46:50PM -0400, 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. 

> My (possibly faulty) understanding was that the whole
"Redistribution" 
> and "Disclaimer of Warranty" parts applied to
*any* Apache software - 
> even if it was built from today's bug-ridden head
revision of the trunk, 

It does.

In order the protect *comitters* (not distributors) the ASF
have some
practises that allow it to (potentially) absorb some of the
liability on
releases. Because there's a vote and a chain of authority
from the board
yada yada yada in theory the release is made by the ASF as a
corporate
entity - not any single person.

>From the point of view of a distributor, this practise
may incline you
to accept that a release is more "clean" but it
makes no difference to
your liability. As always though, if distributors have legal
concerns
about anything, then they should consult *their* lawyers.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key:
colm+pgpstdlib.net

On Aug 18, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote:

> Steffen,
>   I really don't see anything threatening by what Bill
said.  On the
> contrary, he very openly said that there's nothing
illegal about
> releasing an RC; the way I read it, the potential
problems are coming
> from endusers who might use a broken RC, fsck up their
systems and go
> hunting (with a battery of lawyers) for someone to
blame.  In such a
> case the first stop would likely be the ASF, but the
ASF would tell  
> said
> pissed off user (and lawyers) that it's none of their
concern if said
> enduser was neglegant enough to use an RC (not a
release) in his
> environment.



That is true. It is not a release until the ASF says so.
We placed the 2.2.5 tarballs in the development dist
location
to allow people to test them (I've since made them 600,
owned by me), but they are not yet really, officially
released. It's a disservice to end-users if they think
that they are.

On Aug 19, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 09:46:50PM -0400, 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.
>
>> My (possibly faulty) understanding was that the
whole  
>> "Redistribution"
>> and "Disclaimer of Warranty" parts
applied to *any* Apache software -
>> even if it was built from today's bug-ridden head
revision of the  
>> trunk,
>
> It does.
>

Released s/w is very very different from s/w that people
can
obtain from trunk via svn themselves. The former is an
official distribution of a software project from the PMC
(and
hence the ASF). The latter is not.

On Aug 19, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Steffen wrote:

>
> Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling
that ASF  
> and/or
> Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache
Lounge. And  
> like Tom
> said before: sounds a bit more territorial than legal  
to me.  
> Maybe Covalent Technologies is also  trying to protect
there  
> position as distributor ?
>

Nothing could be further from the truth.