Actually the discussions I remember have explicitly favoured (3) (forking the last ALv2 version) if no ALv2 licensed version is available anymore. There are 2 arguments for that: it's not only aether, it's also sisu and the other guice stuff.
Aether and likes are core maven parts which are utterly important if we like to maintain maven itself. Just check how deep aether is anchored in DefaultMaven.java! The original decision was to introduce a 'pluggable repository layer' which in my opinion would have meant to introduce a series of interfaces and data holder classes in form of a SPI. But this very part has not been implemented this way. Instead lots of internal details needs to be addressed/controlled directly from inside Maven. I tried to introduce such an interface layer for a few days but failed due to the deep integration... So I'd definitely -1 a EPL core dependency which once was part of maven core as long as there is no ALv2 alternative which we can bugfix ourselfs! LieGrue, strub --- On Sun, 7/17/11, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > Subject: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether > To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org> > Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 1:26 PM > After re-reading the ASF legal > licensing policy, I'm starting this > thread to formally propose that the Maven incorporate > versions of > Aether that are EPL without an AL dual-license. As per > convention, > someone can make a VOTE thread once voices have been heard > here. > > EPL is 'Category B'. Binary redistribution with a notice is > acceptable. > > Maven incorporated many plexus components, and at least > some of them > have IP question marks hanging over them (c.f. the > discussion of the > plexus-utils replacement). I, therefore, don't see any real > impact on > the users of Maven in adopting EPL copies of Aether. To the > extent > that Maven is a development tool, the user impact of > category B > components is lighter than with something that is > routinely > incorporated in larger systems. To the extent, on the other > hand, that > Maven is embeddable, this could be a problem for someone. > However, > that argument would make a lot more sense if every other > scrap of the > ecosystem were fully-vetted category A. > > Someone might wonder, 'Why has Benson decided to tilt at > this > particular windmill?' > > Well, some itches of mine have led into Aether, and I'd > feel fairly > silly investing a lot of time and energy in Aether patches > that will > never see the light of day in Maven. So, I'm inclined to > push the > community to choose a course of action. I see three > possibilities: > > 1) Just make the notice arrangements to use Aether under > EPL. > 2) Actively see if Sonatype will put the dual license > back. > 3) Fork the last dual version. > > My sense, without reading private archives, is that the > community > decided not to adopt the overall course of action of which > (3) would > be a part, so I believe that it's not a serious option at > this point. > (2) is possible, but my view is that the value to the > community of the > dual license is not worth the trouble. Thus, I'm proposing > (1), but > I'm certainly not going to complain if some PMC member > decides to take > a run at (2). A positive decision to allow incorporation of > EPL Aether > would give us flexibility, and if (2) happened later that > would be a > good thing. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
