The license for the new 1.3 stuff is also unacceptable (same as 2). Besides it doesn't have all the Henning love either...
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 07:51:48AM -0300, Andr?s wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Marco Peereboom <sl...@peereboom.us> wrote: > > OpenBSD apache 1.3 != apache 1.3 > > > > What is wrong with apache in base? > > > > And if you don't like it what is wrong with apache 2 in ports? > > > > Or any other web server in ports for that matter. > > > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 07:21:03PM -0800, David wrote: > >> Given the above, is openbsd going to stick with Apache 1.3? > > > > > > My question after reading the news was: Will OpenBSD update its > in-base Apache to 1.3.42, or will it stick with 1.3.29? If not I'd > like to know why. I can understand the licensing issue of upgrading to > Apache 2, the fact that updating an in-base program such as Apache > which, AFAIK, has had some improvements from the OpenBSD people, might > be time consuming, and the fact that maybe Apache 1.3.29 it's just > good enough. But I'd like to know which one of these theories is > correct, I'm just curious. > > Greetings.
