Contributed by sean on from the dept.
According to misc@ mailing list, apache 1.3.29 is the last release shipping with OpenBSD. There will be bugfiles only but now new releases due to new Apache Software Foundation license. New 1.3.31 is already "poisoned" with it. You can easily update httpd manually but this is strictly deprecated, because OpenBSD httpd contains numerous of security fixes and improvements.We choose rock solid security, no bleeding enge bells and whistles!
(Comments are closed)
By P. Pruett (68.18.4.26) ppruett@webengr.com on
Comments
By johannes (131.130.1.143) on
Comments
By krh (207.75.181.173) on
I understand that it's a patent license thing. The new Apache license says:
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
This is unacceptable and unhealthy, like everything having to do with software patents. Except for this one section, I think the license is fine.
The long-term solution is to revoke and forbid all software patents.
Comments
By Stephen Paskaluk (129.128.138.50) on
The long-term solution is to revoke and forbid all software patents.
I don't support what currently happens with software patents, but shouting "Software Patents are Bad" and denouncing as blasphemy anything that acknowleges their existence certainly isn't going to help.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (65.39.93.100) on
By Anonymous Coward (208.252.48.163) on
That is extremely naive and short-sighted. I'm glad you're not making the laws.
By Nate (209.162.224.62) on
Comments
By Paul Pruett (68.18.4.26) ppruett@webengr.com on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (131.202.163.30) on
Comments
By MechaDragon X (205.240.34.204) mechadragonx at autocthchonia dot net on
What about seperating Apache (and maybe other net services like ftpd) from the base##.tgz package and adding a net##.tgz package similar to the optional GPL laden comp##.tgz and non-essential games##.tgz?
This would also have the benifit of making a base install more of a minimalist client install for those not intending to use OpenBSD in a server environment.
By Anonymous Coward (64.9.107.190) on
I'm not sure how this snip works. Rejecting patches from the openbsd team is perfectly acceptable and reasonable if the patches are not in line with the development path of apache.
and are adding to the license as "protection", they think they're doing good. They are doing the opposite to what OpenBSD is.
This is a nice and happy statement. I simply don't agree with you. Can you tell me why this license protection is in fact "the opposite to what OpenBSD is."
Not to pick at your grammer, but that last sentence is phrased badly enough that the meaning is not entirely clear to me.
What exactly do you think, and why do you think it?
Comments
By Anoneemus Coward (208.59.203.99) on
By Nate (209.162.235.146) on
Comments
By Eric Gillingham (2002:437d:c1f2::1) sysrq@sysrq.tk on http://sysrq.tk
By Anonymous Coward (81.178.116.74) on
By krh (207.75.181.173) on
By Paul Pruett (68.18.4.26) ppruett@webengr.com on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.18.4.26) on
By Anonymous Coward (67.70.165.2) on
In other words, are the Linux folks going to see this too?
By Anonymous Coward (142.165.207.162) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.18.4.26) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (64.9.107.190) on
Comments
By mike (80.219.125.69) on
By P. Pruett (68.18.4.26) ppruett@webengr.com on
By krh (207.75.178.217) on
Since I spoke so vehemently against software patents above, I feel I should reply.
I don't object to patents. I like them, when they are used as intended--that is, to give an inventor a limited amount of time in which only he can develop and profit from his invention. Software patents are not used this way.
To illustrate my point, let me contrast three sections of the Apache 2.0 License. The first one I'd like to quote is section 4, which reads in part, "You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium." Under the Berne Convention, if I understand it correctly, a copyright holder retains all rights to his work that he does not explicitly disclaim. This sentence disclaims the right of the ASF to control reproduction and instead gives it to the users.
The second section I'd like to quote is also from section 4c: "You must retain ... all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work." This explicitly retains one of the ASF's rights, that is, the right to be attributed as the author of Apache. Indeed, it retains the right of attribution for everyone who has contributed to Apache, not just ASF.
The patent license clause deals in part with rights like the first example above, and then ends with the sentence, "If You institute patent litigation ... then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate." This is a threat. In more vigorous language, it says, "Our teeth are at your throat just as yours are at ours. If you try to bite us, we will bite back."
Maybe that sentence would seem more reasonable to me if I were a cunning businessman. I'm not. I'm an academic, and I try to be a nice guy. Making threats is not nice. I don't want to play in the same sandbox as people who threaten me. Instead I'd rather go to a different sandbox and play with myself. I really would. It may not be as satisfying as playing with others, but it's much more satisfying than having sand kicked in my face.
If software patents were used responsible and issued only for true innovations, then I wouldn't object to them. I have strong doubts that this will ever happen, and this is why I have begun to oppose software patents on principle. It's not that computer-related inventions don't deserve protection (they do)--it's that I'm not sure it's possible to reliably distinguish between those patent claims that are truly innovative, thus deserving of protection, and those that aren't. It seems to me that forbidding software patents may be the lesser of two evils, as unfortunate as it is. Similar arguments apply to other kinds of patents; but I'm not as familiar with other types of patents, so I'm more wary of saying we should forbid those.
The other possible solution is a reform of the patent system. By "patent system" I mean the United States Patent and Trademark Office, since I'm American, and besides, we're the ones whose patent system is embarassing ourselves. But I don't have any idea where you'd begin on such a reform. The Public Patent Foundation is a good idea--but if they are correct with their estimate that half of all patents are invalid, how can we possible begin to correct the problem?
To be honest I think it's all pretty scary. If there were an easy and working solution, I'd be for it in a heartbeat.
Comments
By Stephen Paskaluk (129.128.138.50) on
I don't object to patents. I like them, when they are used as intended--that is, to give an inventor a limited amount of time in which only he can develop and profit from his invention. Software patents are not used this way.
snip most of a very good post
To be honest I think it's all pretty scary. If there were an easy and working solution, I'd be for it in a heartbeat.
You just gave a pretty much perfect summary of my thoughts on software patents, and very well stated at that. You have to admit that was a long way from your earlier statement though :)
As far as the threat Apache is putting forward, it is not nice at all. I can see what they're trying to do, but it certainly isn't a very BSD friendly
By MechaDragon X (205.240.34.204) mechadragonx at autocthonia dot net on
Essentially, it muddles the whole distribution. OpenBSD strives to be totally BSD licensed, but the compiler is GPL and has additional restrictions beyond the BSD license. Therefore, GCC cannot be distributed in the base system without making it effectively GPL as a whole as well.
Although individual components may have differnt licenses, in general, the whole distribution medium will be limited to the terms of it's most restrictive license. It may even possibly be conflicted by many incompatable clauses within the various softwares if such licensing schemes are included without careful consideration.
Lastly, modifications to Apache will also fall under the terms of thier new license. Therefore, if the OpenBSD team publishes Apache with thier patches, Apache's new license will "steal" thier work and lock it away forever in a license that the developers don't agree with.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.173.245.209) on
Comments
By MechaDragon X (205.240.34.204) on
Learn to read.
"Although individual components may have differnt licenses, in general, the whole distribution medium will be limited to the terms of it's most restrictive license."
Solaris has a more restrictive license than BASH, preventing you from redisributiing the Solaris whole, including BASH. You can extract BASH if you are so inclined, then put it on a seperate medium, but you cannot redistribute the entire Solaris installtion medium containing BASH because of Sun's restrictions on the surrounding bundled components.
By Anonymous Coward (138.88.213.211) on
Comments
By Jason (66.66.149.175) on