Apachelounge problems

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.

None of our many other distributors seem to have problems
with this
concept, I hope Apachelounge starts to behave like a
responsible
member of the community.  By now, you noticed 2.2.5 is
scuttled and
2.2.6 will be rerolled.  Without an announce, /dev/ tarball
builds
doesn't belong on any external site.  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.

The ASF holds release votes for a reason, to make certain
that the
release is an act of the foundation, and not individuals. 
Protect
yourselves, guys.

Bill

This is a big booom for me and some fellow webmasters. And
is disappointing
me, special the style you are using. This style gives me the
impression that
ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried to promote
Apache in the
Windows world.

I close the site now to further notice, till we sort out
this issue.  I do
not want to promote an Apache  when I get this kind of
messages in Public
form one of the key guys from ASF.

Just for testing this RC for our small community, we where
thinking that we
are helping. And it is stated in in the announcement and the
readme says
that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just a few are
downloading it.

2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download, see for
example:
http
://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir

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

To be  clear, Apache Lounge is just a small site with not a
lot of visitors.
And it is just for fun for some frinds who trying to help
others. It is not
a commercial site, more a hobby site. Stated is at the site
"I charge
nothing ".

Btw:

I got:  <wrowerowe-clan.net>:
The e-mail message could not be delivered because the user's
mailfolder is
full.

Steffen




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowerowe-clan.net>
To: "Steffen" <infoapachelounge.com>
Cc: <devhttpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 00:09
Subject: Apachelounge problems


> 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.
>
> None of our many other distributors seem to have
problems with this
> concept, I hope Apachelounge starts to behave like a
responsible
> member of the community.  By now, you noticed 2.2.5 is
scuttled and
> 2.2.6 will be rerolled.  Without an announce, /dev/
tarball builds
> doesn't belong on any external site.  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.
>
> The ASF holds release votes for a reason, to make
certain that the
> release is an act of the foundation, and not
individuals.  Protect
> yourselves, guys.
>
> Bill
>

Steffen wrote:
> This is a big booom for me and some fellow webmasters.
And is disappointing
> me, special the style you are using. This style gives
me the impression that
> ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried to
promote Apache in the
> Windows world.

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.

> I close the site now to further notice, till we sort
out this issue.  I do
> not want to promote an Apache  when I get this kind of
messages in Public
> form one of the key guys from ASF.

Well, you should be aware there are no 'key guys' at the
httpd project, except
perhaps for Roy who happens to be the chairman (and he'll
sign a note as the
VP, httpd Project, if he's using that authority).  It's a
community of equals.

There's no reason to shutter the site.  Removing that item
is more than enough
to keep us happy, and to protect yourselves.

> Just for testing this RC for our small community, we
where thinking that we
> are helping. And it is stated in in the announcement
and the readme says
> that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just a few
are downloading it.

Maybe you misunderstood.  We want *you* to try your *build*
with that RC!
We don't want it distributed to end users, there's a big
difference.

Let us know what's wrong with the tag, before you would be
distributing it
for the community.  I think we've done a reasonable job
keeping up with bug
fixes in the Win32 build, especially catching up with VC
2005, partly for
all the feedback you and fellow VS 2005 users have
provided!

> 2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download, see for
example:
> http
://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir

Well, it shouldn't be, but that's a matter to bring up with
them individually.
Understand that there is *no* 2.2.5.  It doesn't exist until
3 project mbrs
have voted +1, there are more +1's than -1's, and the RM
declares it baked
and moves it to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/.  Ok?

> 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?  These are for
developers to
verify, they aren't for user testing.  Actually, we are
looking at issues
such as;

 * 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.

You just want to let devhttpd know that you
reviewed it, and are +/-1 for
release, so it gets baked quickly with no issues.  You don't
have to do every
review step I mention above, but just perform the tests you
like on the
platforms you like.

Having users asking questions about unreleased code just
causes grief for the
users community.  You and our other testers know better;
but they won't.  Once
we have that vote, and it's our release, it's the ASF's
mistake if something
went wrong.

> I got:  <wrowerowe-clan.net>:
> The e-mail message could not be delivered because the
user's mailfolder is
> full.

Weird (?!?) thanks for letting me know that!

Bill

Thanks for the answer.

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


Steffen


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowerowe-clan.net>
To: <devhttpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 01:31
Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems


> Steffen wrote:
>> This is a big booom for me and some fellow
webmasters. And is 
>> disappointing
>> me, special the style you are using. This style
gives me the impression 
>> that
>> ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried
to promote Apache in 
>> the
>> Windows world.
>
> 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.
>
>> I close the site now to further notice, till we
sort out this issue.  I 
>> do
>> not want to promote an Apache  when I get this kind
of messages in Public
>> form one of the key guys from ASF.
>
> Well, you should be aware there are no 'key guys' at
the httpd project, 
> except
> perhaps for Roy who happens to be the chairman (and
he'll sign a note as 
> the
> VP, httpd Project, if he's using that authority).  It's
a community of 
> equals.
>
> There's no reason to shutter the site.  Removing that
item is more than 
> enough
> to keep us happy, and to protect yourselves.
>
>> Just for testing this RC for our small community,
we where thinking that 
>> we
>> are helping. And it is stated in in the
announcement and the readme says
>> that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just a
few are downloading it.
>
> Maybe you misunderstood.  We want *you* to try your
*build* with that RC!
> We don't want it distributed to end users, there's a
big difference.
>
> Let us know what's wrong with the tag, before you would
be distributing it
> for the community.  I think we've done a reasonable job
keeping up with 
> bug
> fixes in the Win32 build, especially catching up with
VC 2005, partly for
> all the feedback you and fellow VS 2005 users have
provided!
>
>> 2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download, see
for example:
>> http
://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir
>
> Well, it shouldn't be, but that's a matter to bring up
with them 
> individually.
> Understand that there is *no* 2.2.5.  It doesn't exist
until 3 project 
> mbrs
> have voted +1, there are more +1's than -1's, and the
RM declares it baked
> and moves it to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/.  Ok?
>
>> 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?  These are
for developers to
> verify, they aren't for user testing.  Actually, we are
looking at issues
> such as;
>
> * 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.
>
> You just want to let devhttpd know that you
reviewed it, and are +/-1 for
> release, so it gets baked quickly with no issues.  You
don't have to do 
> every
> review step I mention above, but just perform the tests
you like on the
> platforms you like.
>
> Having users asking questions about unreleased code
just causes grief for 
> the
> users community.  You and our other testers know better;
but they won't. 
> Once
> we have that vote, and it's our release, it's the ASF's
mistake if 
> something
> went wrong.
>
>> I got:  <wrowerowe-clan.net>:
>> The e-mail message could not be delivered because
the user's mailfolder 
>> is
>> full.
>
> Weird (?!?) thanks for letting me know that!
>
> Bill
> 

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

Then remove the reference of my employer, please.  I was
speaking as a http
project member on my personal time.  In fact, remove my
name, now that you
understand that the ASF doesn't have a legal issue with your
site; it's your
issue of choosing to protect yourself or not from third
parties.  Not from me,
and not from the ASF.

The legal-stuff I offered is to highlight the line which you
enjoy relative
safety as a distributor of open source.  If something
happened, you would
want to refer any complaining company/individual back at the
"official
release" (e.g., the ASF).  The ASF is a big foundation,
with the resources
to address any complaint and remedy or dispute it.

But if it isn't something that the ASF released, you are at
a loss to explain
some arbitrary infringement.  I wrote you both last year,
and this, to help
encourage you to respect that line for your own protection
and benefit.

Bill

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.  Said enduser (and lawyers) wouldn't like that
answer, but
there's nothing more they could do about it (since it's
true), so they'd
look for another scapegoat, and that would be the place they
got the
package: you.  Said lawyers would likely point a finger at
you for
posting an RC without enough bells, whistles or warning
lights
(regardless of how many notices you did put up about it
being a RC and
not a release; they'll say it's a binary and who's looking,
or
something).  The point is that Bill is simply trying to get
you out of
said situation by avoiding it altogether.

You can ignore the help, and leave things as-is if you
really want.
Luckily (and probably), said situation won't happen, and
everyone will
be happy...  or maybe not.

And for the record, I'm a big fan of what you're doing in
the win32
community, and I'd hate to see the site shut down for
good...

  Issac

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.
> 
> 
> Steffen
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "William A.
Rowe, Jr."
> <wrowerowe-clan.net>
> To: <devhttpd.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 01:31
> Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems
> 
> 
>> Steffen wrote:
>>> This is a big booom for me and some fellow
webmasters. And is
>>> disappointing
>>> me, special the style you are using. This style
gives me the
>>> impression that
>>> ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I
tried to promote Apache
>>> in the
>>> Windows world.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>> I close the site now to further notice, till we
sort out this issue. 
>>> I do
>>> not want to promote an Apache  when I get this
kind of messages in
>>> Public
>>> form one of the key guys from ASF.
>>
>> Well, you should be aware there are no 'key guys'
at the httpd
>> project, except
>> perhaps for Roy who happens to be the chairman (and
he'll sign a note
>> as the
>> VP, httpd Project, if he's using that authority). 
It's a community of
>> equals.
>>
>> There's no reason to shutter the site.  Removing
that item is more
>> than enough
>> to keep us happy, and to protect yourselves.
>>
>>> Just for testing this RC for our small
community, we where thinking
>>> that we
>>> are helping. And it is stated in in the
announcement and the readme says
>>> that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just
a few are downloading it.
>>
>> Maybe you misunderstood.  We want *you* to try your
*build* with that RC!
>> We don't want it distributed to end users, there's
a big difference.
>>
>> Let us know what's wrong with the tag, before you
would be
>> distributing it
>> for the community.  I think we've done a reasonable
job keeping up
>> with bug
>> fixes in the Win32 build, especially catching up
with VC 2005, partly for
>> all the feedback you and fellow VS 2005 users have
provided!
>>
>>> 2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download,
see for example:
>>> http
://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir
>>
>> Well, it shouldn't be, but that's a matter to bring
up with them
>> individually.
>> Understand that there is *no* 2.2.5.  It doesn't
exist until 3 project
>> mbrs
>> have voted +1, there are more +1's than -1's, and
the RM declares it
>> baked
>> and moves it to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/.  Ok?
>>
>>> 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?  These
are for developers to
>> verify, they aren't for user testing.  Actually, we
are looking at issues
>> such as;
>>
>> * 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.
>>
>> You just want to let devhttpd know that you
reviewed it, and are +/-1
>> for
>> release, so it gets baked quickly with no issues. 
You don't have to
>> do every
>> review step I mention above, but just perform the
tests you like on the
>> platforms you like.
>>
>> Having users asking questions about unreleased code
just causes grief
>> for the
>> users community.  You and our other testers
know better; but they
>> won't. Once
>> we have that vote, and it's our release, it's the
ASF's mistake if
>> something
>> went wrong.
>>
>>> I got:  <wrowerowe-clan.net>:
>>> The e-mail message could not be delivered
because the user's
>>> mailfolder is
>>> full.
>>
>> Weird (?!?) thanks for letting me know that!
>>
>> Bill
>>

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

 > doesn't belong on any external site.  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.

Issac Goldstand wrote:
 > Steffen,
 >   I really don't see anything threatening by what Bill
said.  On the
...
 > posting an RC without enough bells, whistles or
warning lights
 > (regardless of how many notices you did put up about
it being a RC and
 > not a release; they'll say it's a binary and who's
looking, or

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

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, 
and that it was  a solid and reliable protection from just
the scenario 
you describe.

The "you-must-build-it-yourself-from-source" rule
to test a release 
candidate probably isn't too much bother for Unix users, but
many 
Windows users look to a small number of "Windows
builders" to build a RC 
like Steffen's VC8 build so they can test what they expect
to put into 
production once the version is released (*if* it is released
of course!)

I am certainly one of these.

The likelihood that Apache Lounge members would mistake
Steffen's 2.2.5 
build for a released version is no greater than all the many
other 
situations where unreleased versions of open-source software
are 
available.  Perhaps a first-time hobbyist experimenter might
make this 
mistake, but certainly not any professional admins.

The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more territorial
than legal 
to me. Just my 2c worth...

-tom-

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.

First, I hope I was not threatening.  As I said, my
appologies if it came
across that way, I'm not feeling up to par.  That said,
IANAL but I will
pass on what I understand from my few years here...

> 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,
> and that it was  a solid and reliable protection from
just the scenario
> you describe.

Right - Disclaimer of Warranty means unless you add a
Warranty, you are
offering none under the Apache License.  If they don't
accept that license,
they don't have a license to even use the code for any
purpose.

That applies no matter if it's code you wrote yourself and
release under
the AL, or code you grab from our working space, e.g. /dev/
or svn, or
an actual release.

The idea, and again IANAL, is that /dev/ and svn are work
product, and not
finished product, so a third party who has an *IP issue*
with our sources
will complain to us either way, and it will be resolved
promptly (by removing
the offending code, or by our disputing their claim).

I understand, again IANAL, but there are different
considerations about
work product and released products which infringe on someone
else's IP.
The ASF wants to support you all, our users, by dealing with
these.  If
you grab code out of svn or /dev/ for httpd related
development, no
trouble at all, you are handling work product.  If you
release that code
as a product, then it's not the ASF's product, it's *your*
product (which
you have to give a different name to, per the Apache
License).

> The "you-must-build-it-yourself-from-source"
rule to test a release
> candidate probably isn't too much bother for Unix
users, but many
> Windows users look to a small number of "Windows
builders" to build a RC
> like Steffen's VC8 build so they can test what they
expect to put into
> production once the version is released (*if* it is
released of course!)

Right.  For purpose of discussion, if he posted a link to
such binaries
only on testershttpd or devhttpd, this would be less
of an issue (or no
issue at all).  If you subscribe to testers or
dev
we all presume you
know what these concepts mean, and will reply about problems
to the right
place where the problem can be solved, and know this is not
a finished
product.  You are one of the workers on this project.

I only want to protect our users and distributors by making
this difference
really clear.  The binary on his site was "Steffan's
Web Server" not the
Apache HTTP Server 2.2.5.  When httpd votes to release it
and the RM posts
up the binary, that "gate" is the exit door for
the "product" to become
the ASF's.

> The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more
territorial than legal
> to me. Just my 2c worth...

Nope.  Not territorial, only frustrating since we had this
discussion
in January.

Bill

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.

Just out of curiosity, why don't we name the tarballs as
such?
httpd-2.2.5-RC.tar.gz or httpd-2.2.5-dev.tar.gz, and if the
tarball gets
enough votes, just rename it to httpd-2.2.5.tar.gz

--
Davi Arnaut

> 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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Donovan" <donovantbellatlantic.net>
To: <devhttpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 03:46
Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems


> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
> > doesn't belong on any external site.  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.
> 
> Issac Goldstand wrote:
> > Steffen,
> >   I really don't see anything threatening by what
Bill said.  On the
> ...
> > posting an RC without enough bells, whistles or
warning lights
> > (regardless of how many notices you did put up
about it being a RC and
> > not a release; they'll say it's a binary and who's
looking, or
> 
> Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for
some of us that the 
> Apache2 license protects "released" versions
of Apache differently.
> 
> 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, 
> and that it was  a solid and reliable protection from
just the scenario 
> you describe.
> 
> The "you-must-build-it-yourself-from-source"
rule to test a release 
> candidate probably isn't too much bother for Unix
users, but many 
> Windows users look to a small number of "Windows
builders" to build a RC 
> like Steffen's VC8 build so they can test what they
expect to put into 
> production once the version is released (*if* it is
released of course!)
> 
> I am certainly one of these.
> 
> The likelihood that Apache Lounge members would mistake
Steffen's 2.2.5 
> build for a released version is no greater than all the
many other 
> situations where unreleased versions of open-source
software are 
> available.  Perhaps a first-time hobbyist experimenter
might make this 
> mistake, but certainly not any professional admins.
> 
> The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more
territorial than legal 
> to me. Just my 2c worth...
> 
> -tom-
>

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.