Ok, To clarify the windows MSI will not build in the default profile. I have enabled a new profile "buildw" to build windows MSI installer which explicitly we need to pass similar to nonoss?
Is that sufficient to make it nonoss or still we need to move it under nonoss profile explicitly? Thanks Damoder/ -----Original Message----- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014 9:58 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Damoder Reddy; Koushik Das Subject: Re: Review Request 23192: Adding Readme and run checkbox at the end of the installation. Also installing mysql connector 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. >
