On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, from the responses given to my question I'm sure the board would > not look fondly on a fork at github either.
The board members' position in those emails is very critical of any fork as the next step. What the board would say if a sincere attempt to solve the merit problem failed, or if a 'rogue element' performed a fork and made a release available, is hard to say, since the board also hates hypothetical question with the power of 1000 suns. > > On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> The board will not look fondly on Maven switching to a fork hosted at Apache >> Extras. However, I'm not sure what they would think about a github fork >> since sonatype-aether is hosted there and that is precisely what github >> promotes. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Mark Struberg 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] >>> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
