4 ms·

can I ask why? I am not an openbsd guy obviously but know httpd is popular. Is it because adding it to base install adds too many security concerns?

throwaway2048 13y ago
It is being replaced by Nginx
danieldk 13y ago
It's the base system, so it makes more sense to include a small, fast, and secure HTTP server than one that includes everything and the kitchen sink. Note that it's still easy to install Apache from the OpenBSD ports.
mrweasel 13y ago
OpenBSD forked Apache 1.3, when the Apache 2.0 license was introduced. One argument could be that maintaining, patch and extend a web server on top of writing an operating system is to much work, especially if there's a better alternative, with a license you can accept. Including a web server isn't necessarily a security concern, it's not running by default. The advantages is that there's a web server included, with privsep, chrooting and a sane default configuration.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  What was the incompatibility?
  - ef47d35620c1 13y ago
    The incompatibility is with their beliefs, it's not technical. You can get Apache 2 in ports and packages. They disagre with the license, so it is not acceptable to them in base. It's the same reason they ship an ancient GCC in base, but once again, the newer ones are in ports. What they include in base OpenBSD is very special to them.
  - riffraff 13y ago
    The OpenBSD policy page is quite useless[0] on this, but I _believe_ the issue is that the Apache License 2.0 contains the patent clause that states something like "you can't sue apache if someone contributes stuff that infringes your patent", which limits the freedom of the openbsd users to sue apache. The relevant thread[1] from the time may be of use, but a specific message sums it up: "We've been clear: Their new license contains more stuff, and we do not accept MORE STUFF in licenses." [0] http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html [1] http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0406/msg00412.html http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0406/msg00412.htm...
    - bbanyc 13y ago
      On the one hand being against MORE STUFF is a perfectly reasonable position. There's too much accumulated cruft in legal documents that has no real purpose besides make-work for lawyers. On the other hand it's absurd to dogmatically oppose MORE STUFF regardless of what the stuff is. The added terms in Apache-2 make sense for a US-based collaborative software project that accepts contributions from businesses that hold software patents. They may be pointless legalese for a Canadian-based project whose contributors are mostly individual developers, but that doesn't make them an assault on developers' freedoms.
      - clarry 13y ago
        Is simple, unconditional freedom really that absurd? We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. That's what we call a free gift. That is one of the project's goals. You're right, the patent clause might not necessarily be an attack against the OpenBSD developers' freedoms. But they do not care about their own freedoms only; they want it to be free for anyone (this includes corporations who might hold patents, and also individual developers working for such corporations), for any purpose. It is really as simple as that.
        clarry 13y ago
        Let me quote Theo -- You guys keep missing the point really. We know what a free license should say. It should say Copyright foo I give up my rights and permit others to: distribute sell give modify use I retain the right to be known as the author/owner When it says something else, ask this: - is it 100% gauranteed fluff which cannot ever affect anyone? - is it giving away even more rights (the author right)? If not, then it must be giving someone more rights, or by the same token -- taking more rights away from someone else! Then it is _less_ free than our requirements state! So why even BOTHER wasting your time trying to understand what they say? Who cares if it is legal or not! We're not going to want to go quibble in a court! We're trying to make it so simple that something can't even GO to court, because it's free and, anyone can tell that it is free because the language used to say so is SIMPLE. (From http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=103283218106749&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=103283218106749&w=2)
  - mrweasel 13y ago
    I not completely sure. One complaint was, if I recall correctly simply the length and complexity, compared the BSD license. The Apache 2.0 license is very much lawyer talk and a little hard to read. More likely it was the patent clause of the license that made it so bad that the OpenBSD developers didn't want it. I can sort of see where they're coming from. If some company puts a bit of code into Apache 2, covered by one of their patents, that's okay, anyone using the Apache 2 gets a license. However it's pretty much impossible for anyone to tell which parts of the code is covered by the patent, so you could get in trouble, without knowing it, if you yank out that part of the code an use it elsewhere. The patent could also cover a protocol, an algorithm, whatever, the people using the Apache licensed code don't care, they where given a license for the pattern, but nobody else can do an implementation. It's not for me to say, but I believe that the OpenBSD developers wanted an http server that came unencumbered by patent and was ensured to be free of any software patent. Instead the Apache 2.0 license presented them they the problem that you can actually tell if a given piece of code was covered under some patent.

throwaway2048 13y ago

It is being replaced by Nginx

danieldk 13y ago

It's the base system, so it makes more sense to include a small, fast, and secure HTTP server than one that includes everything and the kitchen sink. Note that it's still easy to install Apache from the OpenBSD ports.

mrweasel 13y ago

OpenBSD forked Apache 1.3, when the Apache 2.0 license was introduced. One argument could be that maintaining, patch and extend a web server on top of writing an operating system is to much work, especially if there's a better alternative, with a license you can accept. Including a web server isn't necessarily a security concern, it's not running by default. The advantages is that there's a web server included, with privsep, chrooting and a sane default configuration.

rbanffy 13y ago
What was the incompatibility?
- ef47d35620c1 13y ago
  The incompatibility is with their beliefs, it's not technical. You can get Apache 2 in ports and packages. They disagre with the license, so it is not acceptable to them in base. It's the same reason they ship an ancient GCC in base, but once again, the newer ones are in ports. What they include in base OpenBSD is very special to them.
- riffraff 13y ago
  The OpenBSD policy page is quite useless[0] on this, but I _believe_ the issue is that the Apache License 2.0 contains the patent clause that states something like "you can't sue apache if someone contributes stuff that infringes your patent", which limits the freedom of the openbsd users to sue apache. The relevant thread[1] from the time may be of use, but a specific message sums it up: "We've been clear: Their new license contains more stuff, and we do not accept MORE STUFF in licenses." [0] http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html [1] http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0406/msg00412.html http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0406/msg00412.htm...
  - bbanyc 13y ago
    On the one hand being against MORE STUFF is a perfectly reasonable position. There's too much accumulated cruft in legal documents that has no real purpose besides make-work for lawyers. On the other hand it's absurd to dogmatically oppose MORE STUFF regardless of what the stuff is. The added terms in Apache-2 make sense for a US-based collaborative software project that accepts contributions from businesses that hold software patents. They may be pointless legalese for a Canadian-based project whose contributors are mostly individual developers, but that doesn't make them an assault on developers' freedoms.
    - clarry 13y ago
      Is simple, unconditional freedom really that absurd? We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. That's what we call a free gift. That is one of the project's goals. You're right, the patent clause might not necessarily be an attack against the OpenBSD developers' freedoms. But they do not care about their own freedoms only; they want it to be free for anyone (this includes corporations who might hold patents, and also individual developers working for such corporations), for any purpose. It is really as simple as that.
      - clarry 13y ago
        Let me quote Theo -- You guys keep missing the point really. We know what a free license should say. It should say Copyright foo I give up my rights and permit others to: distribute sell give modify use I retain the right to be known as the author/owner When it says something else, ask this: - is it 100% gauranteed fluff which cannot ever affect anyone? - is it giving away even more rights (the author right)? If not, then it must be giving someone more rights, or by the same token -- taking more rights away from someone else! Then it is _less_ free than our requirements state! So why even BOTHER wasting your time trying to understand what they say? Who cares if it is legal or not! We're not going to want to go quibble in a court! We're trying to make it so simple that something can't even GO to court, because it's free and, anyone can tell that it is free because the language used to say so is SIMPLE. (From http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=103283218106749&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=103283218106749&w=2)
- mrweasel 13y ago
  I not completely sure. One complaint was, if I recall correctly simply the length and complexity, compared the BSD license. The Apache 2.0 license is very much lawyer talk and a little hard to read. More likely it was the patent clause of the license that made it so bad that the OpenBSD developers didn't want it. I can sort of see where they're coming from. If some company puts a bit of code into Apache 2, covered by one of their patents, that's okay, anyone using the Apache 2 gets a license. However it's pretty much impossible for anyone to tell which parts of the code is covered by the patent, so you could get in trouble, without knowing it, if you yank out that part of the code an use it elsewhere. The patent could also cover a protocol, an algorithm, whatever, the people using the Apache licensed code don't care, they where given a license for the pattern, but nobody else can do an implementation. It's not for me to say, but I believe that the OpenBSD developers wanted an http server that came unencumbered by patent and was ensured to be free of any software patent. Instead the Apache 2.0 license presented them they the problem that you can actually tell if a given piece of code was covered under some patent.