I worked on Aether to extract Maven specific parts (into maven-aether- provider): AFAIK, we are completely free to change anything in the formats used by Maven, either for POM or repositories.
About licensing, I don't have any concern about EPL at Eclipse. The initial announced intend was to move the library to Eclipse foundation (with other repository formats like Eclipse's P2), and provide dual ASL+EPL license in the meantime: everything good. But actually the license restricted to EPL-only before the move to Eclipse is done. :/ Then I'd prefer to stay with an ASL version until Aether is at Eclipse. Regards, Hervé Le dimanche 17 juillet 2011, Kristian Rosenvold a écrit : > sø., 17.07.2011 kl. 09.26 -0400, skrev Benson Margulies: > > 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. > > Hervé and I are aether committers, and if I wasn't so /extremely busy/ > here on Mallorca I'd look at your patch. Opposed to Mark and Ralph, I > have no qualms accepting an EPL 3rd party dependency, If you start > showing an interest in aether matters I'm sure you'll get that commit > bit pretty quickly yourself. > > I really just want to get over this license-of-the week crap > we've been seeing for aether and sisu, which I think is totally > unacceptable. Assuming aether actually goes to stay at eclipse I'm happy > with that, until so happens I still want to keep the asl version (and > fork if necessary). > > Technically, not that much has happened since the last ASL versioned > aether, so there's no real gap to talk about. I /wish/ there was some > kind of change in the pipeline that I could say made the aether/maven > split problematic. But there isn't, is there ? I am much more worried > about change in maven at a higher level than interfaces. I somehow sense > that pom version 5 is never going to happen; but that's not aether's > fault..? > > > Kristian > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
