Not sure whether my opinion here matters, but...
If the support companies and individuals are embedded in the pom.xml
files, they will be in that version forever. So every time one rebuilds
an old package, there will be information that might be completely
obsolete. And believe me, it will become obsolete at a certain point.
This is also making it quite difficult to create a diverse support
eco-system around a package. You will surely have only one company
listed at the end of the build. What about the others that would like to
enter? That will create clear barrier to entry and a bad blood. Which
might be worse then not having anything at all there.
Similar questions were facing LibreOffice when we forked it in 2010 and
we came there with this web-page
https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/professional-support . It might be
slightly outdated, but it has a complete information for those that need
enterprise support and it is one place to keep updating. And eventually
that link could be featured prominently on the download page of the
sources/binaries.
Mes 2 centimes à moi.
F.
On 28/08/2025 03:36, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
I wouldn’t really see this as spamming. It will be only two extra
lines at the end of a Maven build, with an easy opt-out (env var or
sys prop) for anyone who prefers not to see it.
It seems essential to keep it independent of vendors (GitHub,
Sonatype, etc.). A few lines (link to url which could be simply GH
funding url) in the POM keep it simple and entirely under the
project’s control, avoiding the hassle of new files, signatures, or
repository manager checks.
It feels like a lightweight way to surface funding or support options
for open source projects.
Since open source often relies on unpaid time and effort, having an
easy mechanism to point to support opportunities could be a small but
helpful step.
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 at 02:02, Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote:
Martin Todorov wrote on 22. Aug 2025 13:14 (GMT +02:00):
I don't think this is spam. It's a way for developers to get an extra
stream of income to work on the things they love.
I would not put it into the POM, those are ethernal and immutable and we try to
mini ihr them.
Maybe a separate sponsors.xml as a extra artifact is better - or we get an
Organisation which already runs a Sponsoring program like GitHub to define an
official mapping from coordinatea to projects. Or maybe Sonatype since they
would be able to correlate?
If you want to keep it in the POM a rather neutral attribute like a
@sponsor-search=true flag besides the project url would allow the discovery (on
that page). Then we would have to define that only the latest Version of each
artifact is to be consulted. But not sure how possible a Schema change is?
Gruß
Bernd
—
https://bernd.eckenfels.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
