On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 03:14:30PM +0000, Leo Simons wrote: >> It looks like that maven pom on windows _by default_ downloads and >> installs a variety of non-apache-license (and/or non-mit/bsd/variant >> license) software. That shouldnąt really happen. The principle is one of >> łleast surprise˛: As a user or developer who does not RTFM, following the >> default commands/tools/etc, you should end up with a more-or-less >> apache-licensed build result (*) that you can redistribute the result >> under. > > +1 > >> >> But apache policy is that it is acceptable to provide scripts/build >> tools/assistance to help those same users/developers do things that they >> want to do. As long as they understand the legal situation they end up in. >> >> I would recommend adding a "nonoss" maven profile that the developer/user >> has to explicitly select in order to do those downloads. As long as that >> option is described clearly, thatąs then ok. See >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/README >> >> for an example of how to point out the license situation. > > We already have the nonoss profile, so this is a pretty good fix for the > windows build issues noted above IMO. > > Damoder/Koushik - please make this change. > >> >> Something similar is true by the way (IMHO, but as a project cloudstack >> can definitely decide differently), for a possible MSI script. Making an >> MSI script that prompts the user whether to download mysql at the point of >> install, **clearly pointing out the license situation** if they choose to >> do so, seems reasonable, and I personally would not object to shipping >> _that_ kind of script as part of an apache source release. >> > > +1 - that's a reasonable approach as well. Damoder / Koushik - what do > you think about this approach? >
I like this approach. We have a number of things that aren't in the 'default' build because of policy reasons. This is just another of them. >> Finally, the _spirit_ behind the apache policies is that there should be >> an option to use cloudstack with a license-compatible database (say, >> postgres), even if most users will use mysql (just like most people that >> use dbm with httpd will use berkely dbm, but you _can_ use something >> else). Itąs perhaps unfortunate that this isnąt supported, but thatąs not >> apache policy, and given the license situation of other system >> dependencies, I can imagine no-one here wants to make it a priority. > > Yeah, that would be nice... but somebody would have to decide that they > want to do that. > >> >> >> cheers, >> >> >> Leo >> >> PS: IANAL, but, a lot of this discussion is a bit beyond legal, and is >> about choice/policy, and the policy is supposed to be based on common >> sense much more than license stuff tends to be :) > > Agreed - this is about policy not legality. >
