> the OpenBSD developers were grognards who rejected it because they weren't interested in a web server that deviates from tradition That doesn't seem like a f

> the OpenBSD developers were grognards who rejected it because they weren't interested in a web server that deviates from tradition That doesn't seem like a fair description of what happened. I think it was more that the OpenBSD project didn't want Apache 2.x in the base system, and thought that if people wanted it they could get it from the package manager. There might also have been some licensing issues in the sense that they'd prefer no Apache license at all, but that was apparently secondary to the changes in Apache code that contributed to the decision.