Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.231 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references:x-mailer;
        b=sEc2A5R0foV4MQGH2CwCMq5eSX0B5XXbSRz80vP2OdQXaDypSNYWsL3EquWbMSOdSJLOtJwPolwMjNgeNIuOAJRD+m3KDAEHD6i7AZ3HkEf2dBlSaNH+6NObyDn90Gxr0q0IRn6Ax5TqNY4Qkbw4gvM87Zp6uwtWLqcRT//DgTM=
Message-Id: <F0078BBA-9E80-4A90-9F84-6EBD047F40B1@gmail.com>
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <47ADC2BB.3000301@pmb.mine.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: Re: Inclusion of MySQL in roller-mysql-database plugin
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:36:21 -0500
References: <F4E77F41-5A17-4830-8D8C-9AA4F3564199@gmail.com>
 <5eb405c70802060815y7a8a19b8ta2319c1aa9ade9ae@mail.gmail.com>
 <47ADC2BB.3000301@pmb.mine.nu>


On Feb 9, 2008, at 10:11 AM, Peter Petersson wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Thank you Kevan for bringing this to the table. Just to make sure  
> everybody is clear on what the roller-mysql-database plugin dose, or  
> more to the point dose not do. Jarek is exactly right when he says  
> that the plugin dosen't actually include or distribute the mysql  
> driver but it dose however automatically download the driver if it  
> is not already present in the geronimo repository.
>
> As this automatic non user interaction convenience of the plugin,  
> that dose not in a clear way tell the user what he/she is about to  
> do (licence way) is the issue I would like to know if we have a  
> consensus on using prerequsite in the plugin configuration (on the  
> mysql driver being loaded beforehand) to satisfactory handle the  
> licensing issue ?
>
> If I understand Kevan right a prerequisite on the driver would  
> satisfy things so my suggestion (although I am just slightly  
> involved in the roller plugin project and not in the PMC) would be  
> to modify the plugin accordingly and reinstate it in the roller  
> plugin assembly (as it is now it is disabled) what is your take on  
> this?

Hi Peter,
Thanks for your note. Your suggestion is certainly welcome. I did not  
mean to imply (and hope that it wasn't taken this way) that only PMC  
members should participate in this discussion. I only meant that the  
PMC had responsibilities to insure we reached a satisfactory solution.

>
> If we have consensus on this what would be a feasible text to put in  
> the prerequisite section ?

I think some of the text that I put in the pom.xml could be reworded  
slightly and would be ok...

>
>
> Although using prerequisite to fix this is (or may be) a available  
> and viable option It would IMHO (although I don't know if it would  
> satisfy the ASF Licensing Policy(?)) be more feasible (in cases like  
> this) to somehow make the user aware of the licence statement and  
> give him/here the option, after reading the licence (or what ever is  
> necessary to satisfy the parties), to cancel the installation if he/ 
> she so chooses.


IMO, this would be satisfactory, also. Great even... As long as the  
user is properly informed of the licensing implications of his or her  
actions.

--kevan