actually now the argument is that asf's processes are not rigorous enough! seemingly some of sonatypes customers think the asf ip process is too weak... but when i asked a certain person how the epl process was any stronger, given that they take signatures on the cla's on trust and don't verify them, it seemed to me that rather than answer they decided they were going to leave the pmc abduction resign as about asf member... or maybe that was just a co-incident... either way i never got an answer.
back to the topic. mark do not rush to fork just yet. lets wait a week or two. rushed actions do not build a community, and it feels to me that everyone has been rushing their actions and making things worse for everyone. if we slow down a piece and get everyone to see some sense we might be able to get a resolution that is a win-win and a win for users too - Stephen --- Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes, random nonsense words and other nonsense are a direct result of using swype to type on the screen On 30 Jul 2011 17:50, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> wrote: > The 'funny' thing is that I always hear the ranting about how complicated the code handling at Apache. But then: it took them way over 2 years to get m2eclipse cleared in Eclipse! > So their arguments against the ASF are just moot. It looks like it's nothing more than a personal problem. > > If we have no ability to fix bugs in that stuff, then we gonna kick it out sooner or later. I'll dig into the problems we have in our CI atm, and if it turns out to be another aether bug, then I'll start a fork over to apache-extras where every Maven committer can participate if he likes. > Of course, the doors are not closed, but we are currently doomed to be completely depending on an external project which was a central part of maven-core short time ago. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > --- On Sat, 7/30/11, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether >> To: "Maven Developers List" <[email protected]> >> Date: Saturday, July 30, 2011, 1:00 PM >> well it seems to me that we need to >> ensure that aether is not leaking into >> our public api. if it is entirely private from plugins, >> then i really don't >> care if it is epl or dual... dual would be nicer, and truer >> to the original >> plan whereby the code would be developed at github for >> speed, and then given >> back to maven. that plan changed, and now the code is >> (likely) ending up at >> eclipse... Jason has reasons for eclipse... that is just >> reality. personally >> i feel that it is another merit hurdle to have the code at >> eclipse, but then >> having maven at apache is a legal pain for m2eclipse >> because of eclipse's ip >> review policy, so i can see why Jason would want as much of >> the code >> m2eclipse depends on at eclipse. >> >> in any case, let's wait >> >> - Stephen >> >> --- >> Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes, >> random nonsense >> words and other nonsense are a direct result of using swype >> to type on the >> screen >> On 30 Jul 2011 12:47, "Benson Margulies" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I'd like to to try to put a little oxygen into this >> thread now, given >> > the rather clear results of the vote thread. >> > >> > Ralph posed the following question on Legal Discuss: >> 'Can the Maven >> > PMC pull a dual-licensed version of AEther back into >> Apache without a >> > grant from Sonatype?' >> > >> > The answer was, "legally yes, but it is counter to >> long-established >> > policy, and strongly discouraged by a number of senior >> ASF people >> > (including a board member or two)". >> > >> > So, the community has some choices. It seems to me >> that the viability >> > of these different choices depends on the viability of >> walking away >> > from AEther. In practical terms, the choices are: >> > >> > a) Use versions of AEther controlled by 'someone >> else'. >> > b) Create our own 'someone else' at apache-extras or >> elsewhere. >> > c) Go down the path of becoming an exception to the >> policy and take on >> > reworking AEther from the last dual-licensed version. >> > d) Start All Over Again from Maven 2.2. >> > >> > From the vote comments, it seemed to me that a >> plurality of people >> > felt that EPL at Eclipse was tolerable. So that argues >> for sitting >> > still for now. I offer only the observation that >> forking into >> > apache-extras 'works' the same way today, or after the >> code appears in >> > Eclipse. In other words, adopting what's out there >> today only makes >> > choice (c) harder, it doesn't have any impact that I >> see on a, b, or >> > d. However, a 'no' vote is a 'no' vote, so this is all >> just food for >> > thought. >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > 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] >
