RFC: Drop GoAHead / cpukit/httpd webserver?

Joel Sherrill joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com
Wed Nov 18 12:20:29 UTC 2009

Eric Valette wrote:
> On 18/11/2009 10:03, Chris Johns wrote:
>> Thanks Eric. The following is not specifically directed at you rather 
>> they are general questions we should consider.
> As far as I'm concerned: I'm not using goahead anymore and I agree it 
> is dead code that can be dropped. I dunno about the licence but I'm 
> sure at the time (7 years ago!) we checked and got an official 
> statement we can include the code in RTEMS without problem. The 
> replacement I would personally choose is appweb. Note that there are 
> many project still using this code. A well known one is XBMC but there 
> are others...
The dead code issue is our primary concern.
>> This whole site leaves me concerned. They state the license is GPL 
>> but you can obtain a commercial license which has a page headed 
>> "Commercial License Benefits". Huh did I miss something about open 
>> source ? To me this is not open source. I would not use it because 
>> any fixes or improvements I release would have to be licensed to them 
>> to be included up stream so they can enforce the commercial license 
>> otherwise they would have to include all contributors in the 
>> commercial agreements and that is commercially silly.
> For me it is perfectly fine with open source. It was the same for qt, 
> mysql, and is still the same for many tools (e.g knowledge tree). If 
> you use the GPL version, you must respect the licence and give back 
> any change you make if you make a distribution following a proper 
> disclamer of right (as for code donated to the FSF). If you want to 
> keep your modification, get paid support, and not be affected by the 
> GPL virality, you may then buy a commercial licence.
This software is pure GPL and we have not included pure GPL licensed 
code in RTEMS
because we statically link with proprietary user code and we do not want 
the GPL
to automatically apply to end users.

Submitters to appweb apparently have to sign a submittal agreement.


This code cannot be included in the main RTEMS tarball.
>> I think GoAhead should be removed from the tree on these grounds alone.
> Do not mix goahed and appweb. As goahead public code was GPL and 
> unmaintained, someone picked it up and created appweb. A classical GPL 
> fork. Then if no single line of original code remains being bound by 
> initial developper licence...
FWIW GoAhead was not GPL.

> -- eric

More information about the users mailing list