On Jul 17, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi Jason! > > Eclipse doesn't have problems with consuming ALv2 dependencies because ALv2 > explicitly allows sublicensing - but EPL doesn't! > So this is an unidirectional way and exactly the reason why we imo cannot do > this. >
The EPL also explicitly allows sublicensing. Look at the Grant of Rights in 2a[1]. Tomcat embeds the Eclipse Java Compiler for example. I'm not sure how they distribute it, they can relicense and sublicense if they wish but I don't believe they have to. I haven't looked at the distribution in a while. I think you're talking about the EPL not allowing the relicensing of source code. Once the code is EPL it remains so and this property is specifically for stability. No one, for example, could ever take core parts of the Eclipse Platform and relicense them to something that wasn't acceptable to the community. All contributors retain copyright and so it would be almost impossible to relicense anything in the Eclipse Platform. Everyone investing in the platform knows that it's always going to be in that form. The cores of things remain EPL while people can make extensions and license those under anything aside from strong copy left licenses. That all aside your argument did not appear to me to be a legal one, but that Eclipse has problems with projects where other parties control the dependencies. I think for one case in history an Apache project was forked temporarily to make a release train. I believe in this case it was Ant. Aside from that some OSGi manifests are added but generally Eclipse folks are happy not to have to maintain everything. There's certainly no proliferation of forks lying around at Eclipse, most contributions find their way back to the project which is really how it should be IMO. > Btw, you should know exactly how hard it is to pass Eclipse' IP review and > stuff. Wasn't that the reason why you needed to drop a few plexus > dependencies because of uncertain IP? They are careful, which is a good thing. > I'm intimately familiar with the process, yes. What does this have to do with your original argument? Like all 3rd party libraries that are deemed to be required the Eclipse legal team tracked down most of it and we culled/reimplemented what we needed to. What has been sanctioned lives in the maven runtime module in m2e-core. It's all in IPZilla. > Couldn't you just put the ALv2/EPL dual licensing back in place and all are > happy? Noone of us is eager to maintain aether or to fork it if not > necessary. But otoh not being able to fork it if there were problems is imo a > no-go. Also, there are a few contributors eager to ship patches it seems... Yes, that's Benson and he seems fine with Aether where it is and has even agreed to sign the CLA. Kristian and Hervé are committers and also seem to be fine with the current setup. The proposal for Aether at Eclipse has gone live[2]. I stated previously that Aether would be an Eclipse project and that Sonatype didn't wish to house this important library themselves. I believe the Eclipse Foundation and the EPL are great things for open source projects. Diversity is a good thing and working with many organizations to me has no downside. I feel the Eclipse Foundation is the right place for Aether. Though nothing stops you from forking the older ASL version, there's also nothing stopping you from contributing to Aether at Eclipse. > [1]: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html [2]: http://eclipse.org/proposals/technology.aether/ > txs and LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Sun, 7/17/11, Jason van Zyl <ja...@sonatype.com> wrote: > >> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@sonatype.com> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether >> To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org> >> Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 4:36 PM >> On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Mark >> Struberg wrote: >> >>> Sure, those are only my personal .02! >>> It's a majority vote so it's not black/white of >> course. >>> >>> It's also not a problem with EPL but just my personal >> thoughts about our (the Apache Maven projects) ability to >> maintain Maven if a bug gets found. >>> >>> In my opinion we just cannot guarantee that bugs in >> Maven which are caused by a bug in aether can get >> effectively fixed. We just don't have it under our own >> control if there is no safety net of being able to >> fork-and-fix anymore. >>> >>> Btw, the Eclipse Foundation effectively demised >> projects because of external dependencies which are not >> under their control. And that also had nothing to do with >> any sentiment regarding a particular license but solely with >> the question of the maintainability. >>> >> >> Which projects are those? >> >> There are currently 85 libraries in Orbit (the IP approved >> repository of 3rd party components) from Apache[1] used >> across many projects at Eclipse. >> >> Apache doesn't have any definitive list of approved 3rd >> party libraries so it's hard to make a comparison but I >> don't believe Eclipse has a problem using code from Apache. >> >> [1]: >> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/viewvc.cgi/org.eclipse.orbit/?root=Tools_Project >> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> --- On Sun, 7/17/11, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether >>>> To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org> >>>> Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 3:47 PM >>>> >>>> On Jul 17, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Benson Margulies >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So, the document states that the PMC decided >> that >>>> category B's are >>>>> acceptable by majority vote. As per standard >> ASF >>>> community norms, it's >>>>> better to give people a chance to achieve >> consensus >>>> and vote to affirm >>>>> it than to just stage a vote straight off, so >> here we >>>> are. >>>>> >>>>> I do not think that Mark's view that all >> these >>>> components should fork >>>>> is a viable plan for this community, but I >> don't feel >>>> inclined to >>>>> elaborate at this point. >>>> >>>> I think you are going to have to. Mark isn't the >> only one >>>> who has expressed the sentiment. Some of the >> discussions >>>> I've seen on changing the relationship Maven has >> with >>>> repository managers would surely require changes >> at the >>>> Aether layer. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 >>> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> First, the taking in of scattered particulars under one >> Idea, >> so that everyone understands what is being talked about ... >> Second, >> the separation of the Idea into parts, by dividing it at >> the joints, >> as nature directs, not breaking any limb in half as a bad >> carver might. >> >> -- Plato, Phaedrus (Notes on the Synthesis of Form >> by C. Alexander) >> >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
