Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 12th Aug 2006 19:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 152050
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-03
LOL, you misunderstood me (or perhaps I expressed myself incorrectly).

I meant Apache Group won't accept patches from OBSD group. And OBSD group won't accept unpatched versions from Apache; then there's the Licence issue which is for real... the new Apache 2.0 Licence is a "mess of a licence" (sic)
But there are other projects that could be used as an example, most "semi-important" pieces of software in OpenBSD (Apache, Bind, Samba, Sendmail, etc.) have OpenBSD Patches; some of these patches make it to the originals, some are not accepted... unfortunely.
Then we have the Licences issues, if it's not really free, it won't make it.
Then you have "old and huge" problems like the QMail story... but that's another (long) story.