On 2/8/06, Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/7/06, Marcin Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why change that > > It is apache, but with some pathes. But still iti s apache (changing > > name may be bad for futurre coders, that wouldl ike to make somep > > lugin for OpenBSD http server, & before they will start to make it, > > theyw ill have to learn, that httpd in OBSD is just apache 1.3). > > > > Besides i don't understand why so many people would like to change > > current web server, when it's working fine & well & it is enough secure? > > Is there any realy nice argument besides the digit ? > > I think no, so, why people always ask that.... > > I think the biggest argument for changing the web server is the fact > that the Apache in tree doesn't do IPv6, and Apache 2.x does. And, > btw, if you look at early 2.0 releases, you'll see they are still > under the Apache 1.1 License or whatever 1.3 was under. The > incompatible Apache license wasn't put in until after a few 2.x > releases.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I was curious as to how far along 2.0.x was still the Apache 1.1 License, so I checked out older versions of source from: http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/ And I have found that 2.0.48 is the last version with the Apache 1.1 License (compatible with OpenBSD) and that 2.0.49 is the first version with the Apache 2.0 License (incompatible with OpenBSD). So if anyone is truely interested in Apache 2.0.x, it looks like as far as the license is concerned, it's doable if 2.0.48 is used. > > > > At 22:11 2006-02-07, you wrote: > > >Wouldn't it be better then to start a spinoff project (openhttpd or > > >something comes to mind) instead of still calling it apache httpd 1.3? > > > > > >Stuart Henderson wrote: > > >>On 2006/02/07 21:23, RedShift wrote: > > >>>I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. > > >>Well, not exactly. Diff the source trees and you'll see it's not > > >>quite the same thing...
