Only useful if you are trolling.

Hilter.

Godwin.

you forgot one step my dear friend :

1. hilter
2. godwin
3. ?
4. profit !

ok ok im out. i know the way out...

----->[]

-- 
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ;
yes ; fsck ; umount ; sleep

What an extremely reliable webserver!
(Yea, server-reliability != httpd-reliability, but SCNR. ;-)



"If I insult my brother, will you love me more then?"



"I had to lie on my application form, or I would never have gotten my

"You don't seem to be interested in hiring me. If I insult you, will

Do you know what (non-)falsifiability is? Also, people took most
exception to 'free of security bugs', not to "Hiawatha is the most



"I like making non-specific accusations, because the accused have a

"Your company would be *SO* stupid to reject me just because I lied on
my application form. Your company would be *SO* cowardly not to invite


"I used words like 'sheer stupidity' on you in my email, but don't you

"You guys have to take the initiative because I won't."





Nginx? Never heard of it; but makes a good 1st impression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nginx

Ceterum censeo, these "let's replace abc with xyz" misc discussions are lame.

--ropers

It is interesting and honestly I didn't know about this one before your 
post. I went and looked at it. Interesting and I may actually try it in 
real productions to see how it goes.

I actually would welcome a replacement for apache in base and I sure 
would work to make it happen if there really was a will for it, but I 
don't see that happening anytime soon. Plus the license of any such 
software would need to be BSD to be consider to start with. Again, I 
only speak for myself, not the project as I have no business doing so 
and they sure can do it for themselves. But I guess Hugo sadly was 
pretty clear that he would never drop the GPL license and as such there 
isn't any chance in the world to make that happen then. That's his work, 
so his license choice for sure and I definitely respect his choice. I 
wish it was different, but again, not my place to say here.

The only other that might be one day have a chance could be lighttpd as 
it is BSD based, but for the last few months I still try to actually see 
the license and it's still not available:

http://www.lighttpd.net/download/COPYING

As for his comments on attitude, he might be right, all depend. Code is 
judge on merits and OpenBSD list is not a place for the faint of hart 
for sure. Let say it doesn't take prisoners. I am not the most kind at 
time either and so far each time was after a lots of frustrations where 
some looser just doesn't get it, or don't make any effort, but expect 
everyone else to do it form him.

So, it's great that you contacted him and see where he might be, but the 
biggest road block I see his the license for sure.

There is a few things I would love to see changed in the based system, 
but these are only my view and have no impact what so ever. Apache, Bind 
and sendmail are three of them that would remove GPL codes and make it 
even more BSD. GCC was on my list as well, but I am very happy to see 
that there is some work done to may be one day have GCC in port instead 
of base, but a...
[ message continues ]

But he can dual-license it. You just say something to the effect of "I
(author) own all copyrights on this software, and I choose to let you
choose which of the following licenses you want to use"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license
and http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/dual-licensing.html
 """how can the copyright holder offer proprietary licensing for a
mandatory fee if the terms of the GNU GPL stipulate that the code must
be available under less restrictive terms? The answer is that the
GPL's terms are something the copyright holder imposes on everyone
else; the owner is therefore free to decide not to apply those terms

As to this point, I see both sides not really giving a chance to
listen to the other. He finds BSDers abrasive; Funny, I've more found
linux to be the bastion of irritating screechy fanbois. This is a sign
that we (myself included) don't all have the overall picture. "we"
call him 'sheer stupid' for being overzealous with "No security bugs"?
Well how far removed, really, is that claim from "Only two remote
holes in the default install, in more than 10 years!"?
But I don't want to get into personality debates again.

-Nick

The latter is far more accurate than the former.

Greg

-- 
Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:
http://ticketmastersucks.org
http://lodesertprotosites.org
Dethink to survive - Mclusky

Good god folks, just stop it. It's GPL, so it isn't going to happen. 

	-Bob

This horse is dead, Jim.
Well, fix it, Bones.
Sorry Jim, there's no way to do that.
Damnit, Bones.

-- 
Christopher Linn <celinn at mtu.edu>  | By no means shall either the CEC
System Administrator II               | or MTU be held in any way liable
  Center for Experimental Computation | for any opinions or conjecture I
    Michigan Technological University | hold to or imply to hold herein.

Just to say lighttpd appears to be BSD licensed
http://trac.lighttpd.net/trac/browser/trunk/COPYING

Between appears to be and being, there is a difference.

Right from the home page,

http://www.lighttpd.net/

fifth line "And best of all it's Open Source licensed under the revised 
BSD license." have been there for a very long time and the link still is 
dead to the license itself.

I keep looking for it and still not good.

Between appears and being, there is a long way.

Just FYI.

Best,

Daniel

I emailed Jan, the lead developer of Lighttpd to see what he said
about the license. His answer is below.... I would like to say that I
have been running lighttpd in production for the last few months with
out too many hiccups. Vhosts, priv sep + chrooting is all there,
aswell as fastcgi binding for those wanting to run php, ruby etc...
But hey I am not an Openbsd developer and can't comment on the
security of lighttpd's code, but I think most people would agree it
would be better to have a maintained piece of BSD software opposed to
a fairly stagnant bit of GPL.

The only downside of lighttpd that I have come across is that it
doesn't support .htaccess files, thus rules have to added to its
config file.

Cheers
Ste

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jan Kneschke <jan@kneschke.de>
Date: Dec 7, 2007 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: lighttpd license
To: Ste Jones <stejones@gmail.com>


It is this at http://trac.lighttpd.net/trac/browser/trunk/COPYING

It should be the normal, nowadays BSD license:
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

cheers,
Jan

Please note that Apache (in base) is not GPL; this is the license:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/usr.sbin/httpd/LICENSE?rev=1.5&am...

Greetings.

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/usr.sbin/httpd/LICENSE?r
Opps, my bad

Just to clarify: 1- the author claims that it is under the BSD license.
 Well, the author is the only one who can make it available under any
license, and he clearly states it's under that one. 2- In the tarball
distributed by the author, the author includes only one license: the BSD
license sans advertising clause.

Done.

That said, I'm using lighttpd right now and it gets a lot of things
right, but I still don't think it's quite there for distribution as part
of OpenBSD (he says, not being a developer in a position to decide).
-- 
 Matthew Weigel
 hacker
 unique@idempot.net