# cPanel Supports LiteSpeed Web Server



## lsmichael (Jul 22, 2014)

Howdy all,

 

Actually, it's been happening for almost a month now, but cPanel and LiteSpeed have announced yesterday that cPanel is officially supporting LSWS-cPanel users through their ticket system.

 

It's all explained here: http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2014/07/21/official-cpanel-support-for-litespeed-web-server/

 

This is just one more step in making LSWS more universal. We're looking forward to continued cooperation with cPanel to make both products better. Please let us know what you need and what you want. We'll do our best.

 

Cheers,

 

Michael


----------



## TruvisT (Jul 22, 2014)

Hey! I did not know we had a LSWS Rep here!

Just wanted to say hey Michael. Thanks for this good news! We have always been a fan of LSWS.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## lsmichael (Jul 22, 2014)

TruvisT said:


> Hey! I did not know we had a LSWS Rep here!
> 
> Just wanted to say hey Michael. Thanks for this good news! We have always been a fan of LSWS.
> 
> Keep up the good work.


Howdy,

I haven't been around that much recently. I'm kind of in and out.

Nice to meet you. We like the installation videos you put on YouTube.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Jul 22, 2014)

Fantastic!  I've seen Lightspeed be used more and more now, and while I've personally never used it before, I'm definitely getting more and more interested in it as an alternative to Apache.

Thanks for dropping by!


----------



## lsmichael (Jul 22, 2014)

HalfEatenPie said:


> Fantastic!  I've seen Lightspeed be used more and more now, and while I've personally never used it before, I'm definitely getting more and more interested in it as an alternative to Apache.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by!


Thanks! We've always had a pretty devoted user base, but it's been increasing quite a bit recently.

Get in touch if you have any questions. I'm happy to answer questions in a forum thread.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## MannDude (Jul 22, 2014)

Awesome news! Glad to see it.


----------



## TruvisT (Jul 22, 2014)

lsmichael said:


> Howdy,
> 
> I haven't been around that much recently. I'm kind of in and out.
> 
> ...


Thanks!

It is very cool to know that you guys have taken time to see them and found them nice. We hope to get some more time in here soon to do a whole series around your products as our current ones I believe are actually pretty old.

Take care Michael!


----------



## lsmichael (Jul 22, 2014)

TruvisT said:


> Thanks!
> 
> It is very cool to know that you guys have taken time to see them and found them nice. We hope to get some more time in here soon to do a whole series around your products as our current ones I believe are actually pretty old.
> 
> Take care Michael!


That would be great. We'd be happy to put them on the blog/forum/wiki if you get them up.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## syncrohost (Jul 25, 2014)

Thanks for the link Ismichael.


----------



## lsmichael (Jul 28, 2014)

syncrohost said:


> Thanks for the link Ismichael.


You're very welcome.

Cheers,

(LS) Michael


----------



## KuJoe (Jul 28, 2014)

We used LiteSpeed for a while, but their EULA goes against our Terms of Service so we had to either drop them or terminate paying clients who had been with us for a while. Just make sure you read the fine print before you start using their software as they actually have a clause that disallows you from using LiteSpeed Webserver for legal purposes (adult content).


----------



## raindog308 (Jul 28, 2014)

Does cPanel support OpenLiteSpeed as well?


----------



## Dylan (Jul 28, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> We used LiteSpeed for a while, but their EULA goes against our Terms of Service so we had to either drop them or terminate paying clients who had been with us for a while. Just make sure you read the fine print before you start using their software as they actually have a clause that disallows you from using LiteSpeed Webserver for legal purposes (adult content).


Yeah, the developers really ought to be ashamed of themselves for trying to limit free speech. I'll play around with OpenLiteSpeed but I'd never pay for LiteSpeed, or suggest it to anyone else, because of that clause's implications (both legal and principled).

It's all too bad because LS truly is a nice piece of software.


----------



## lsmichael (Jul 29, 2014)

raindog308 said:


> Does cPanel support OpenLiteSpeed as well?


They do not. OpenLiteSpeed is not really meant for use with cPanel, since it doesn't read Apache configs.

m


----------



## lsmichael (Jul 29, 2014)

Dylan said:


> Yeah, the developers really ought to be ashamed of themselves for trying to limit free speech. I'll play around with OpenLiteSpeed but I'd never pay for LiteSpeed, or suggest it to anyone else, because of that clause's implications (both legal and principled).
> 
> It's all too bad because LS truly is a nice piece of software.


I really, really don't want to get into a discussion of whether our terms of service limit free speech. (The position of the programmers is that internet pornography is inadequately policed and thus easily available to minors — which is technically illegal in the US.)

For all intents and purposes, though, that clause is only used to express the wishes of the programmers. It is beyond our means to enforce it and we do not attempt to.

I can understand if you find this to be a frustratingly vague way for the programmers to express their opinions. We will not be changing the wording of the EULA (this topic is rather important to some of the programmers), but I'd at least like to make clear for everyone how this EULA is used in practice.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jul 29, 2014)

I don't see not wanting to be involved in pornography having anything at all to do with free speech.  And let's be honest - if you're not ready to take heat for hosting anti-government clients or pay for an experienced lawyer to tell you the exact rules about allowing, say, Iranian websites - then you can't bitch about free speech.

Personally, I agree with the LS team on the no-porn stance.  I'd rather not allow it at all either - not because I have any sort of moral hangups, but because of how much legal red tape is involved and the potential consequences.

So let's reword the free speech thing, and say what most providers really mean:  _It sucks that LiteSpeed can't be used for adult hosting because that cuts into my profits as a shared webhost provider._


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jul 29, 2014)

Oh, and since the free speech topic came up, I suppose this PSA from _XKCD_ is mandatory:


----------



## raindog308 (Jul 29, 2014)

Well damn, I had a beautiful rant all ready but Aldryic beat me to it.  Freakin' time zones.


----------



## lsmichael (Jul 29, 2014)

Freaking planet. Stupid sun.


----------



## KuJoe (Jul 29, 2014)

Aldryic C said:


> I don't see not wanting to be involved in pornography having anything at all to do with free speech.  And let's be honest - if you're not ready to take heat for hosting anti-government clients or pay for an experienced lawyer to tell you the exact rules about allowing, say, Iranian websites - then you can't bitch about free speech.
> 
> Personally, I agree with the LS team on the no-porn stance.  I'd rather not allow it at all either - not because I have any sort of moral hangups, *but because of how much legal red tape is involved and the potential consequences*.
> 
> So let's reword the free speech thing, and say what most providers really mean:  _It sucks that LiteSpeed can't be used for adult hosting because that cuts into my profits as a shared webhost provider._


While I agree that this has nothing to do with free speech (not sure how that was interpreted from my original post because I never use the free speech argument on the internet as it doesn't apply here), I do question what you mean by the bolded part above. How can the software developer be liable in any way for what a hosting company's client hosts on a webserver running the developer's software?

Having read LiteSpeed's stance of "we don't enforce our EULA", I'm more willing to give their webserver another go as long as they continue to not enforce their EULA (I laughed a little as I typed that).

My only real gripe with the EULA is that it is essentially saying "when you buy this tool you agree to only use this tool in certain cases", it's like leasing a hammer and agreeing that you will not use the hammer to build a doghouse for a certain breed of dog (except in this case if the hammer is taken away from you then you have to recompile a new hammer so your clients can stay online).

Yes, I 100% understand that as the developers they can put whatever they want in their EULA but that doesn't mean I can't rant about it. I do appreciate that the EULA doesn't appear to apply to their Open Source version which is nice and sticks to the Open Source ideology of utilizing a tool for anything your mind can dream up.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jul 29, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> [..] I do question what you mean by the bolded part above. How can the software developer be liable in any way for what a hosting company's client hosts on a webserver running the developer's software?


Nah, that was one of my personal reasons for wanting to disallow adult content.  I was speaking as a BuyVM tech there, not necessarily talking about Litespeed's position in particular.


----------



## lbft (Jul 29, 2014)

Aldryic C said:


> Oh, and since the free speech topic came up, I suppose this PSA from _XKCD_ is mandatory:


Just because it isn't an _illegal_ limitation on free speech doesn't mean it's not a limitation on free speech. Free speech is not exclusively a legal concept, it's also a social one.

They're entitled to put whatever terms they want in their license. I'm entitled to call them dicks for their (legal but not IMHO moral) limitation on speech via their product in a forum which chooses to allow me to voice that opinion. And most importantly, I'm entitled to choose to not use their product and they're entitled to completely ignore me. Legally, that's free speech at work.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jul 29, 2014)

Gotta be careful how far you take that, though... otherwise you can use extreme examples of "I made this gun (LS), but I don't want people to shoot each other with it (host porn)".  Then you'd be arguing that me asking you not to shoot mtwiscool (and beat him with a shovel instead) is limiting your freedom of speech.

Even leaving legality behind.. it's more the concept that they made the tool, and thus can outline it's intended uses.  Now, if they started telling you that you couldn't use Apache to host porn?  Yeah, _that's_ an uncalled for limitation.


----------



## lsmichael (Jul 30, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> I'm more willing to give their webserver another go as long as they continue to not enforce their EULA (I laughed a little as I typed that).
> 
> My only real gripe with the EULA is that it is essentially saying "when you buy this tool you agree to only use this tool in certain cases", it's like leasing a hammer and agreeing that you will not use the hammer to build a doghouse for a certain breed of dog (except in this case if the hammer is taken away from you then you have to recompile a new hammer so your clients can stay online).
> 
> Yes, I 100% understand that as the developers they can put whatever they want in their EULA but that doesn't mean I can't rant about it. I do appreciate that the EULA doesn't appear to apply to their Open Source version which is nice and sticks to the Open Source ideology of utilizing a tool for anything your mind can dream up.


Basically, we recognize that we can't go around checking peoples' dog houses to make sure they didn't use their LSWS hammers to build dog houses for their chihuahuas. (Don't build a dog house for your chihuahua. A chihuahua is not a dog. Or, at least, it's not a real dog.) That would just be impossible and a waste of our time.

And, for OpenLiteSpeed, well, open source licensing requires that you allow people to use it however they want as long as they don't incorporate it into a closed source product. And we couldn't create an open source version without making it, well, open source.


----------

