See below. Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a >> change that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the >> original class could be taken and modified as necessary. > > Makes no difference. You could fork it at Github makes changes, deploy a > binary and consume it. We have been told by the VP of legal we cannot do this. > How are you stopped from doing anything with the code? Including actually > contributing to the project at Eclipse? We are not. My assumption has always been that what has been discussed is wrt something that Aether wouldn't accept - a purely hypothetical situation right now. > The only difference you site is being within ASF SVN or not. Nothing stops > you from forking the code and modifying it. Are you saying you would be willing to provide a software grant to allow us to do so? That would change the situation dramatically. > The changes would be in a public repository and thus you would satisfy the > requirements of the EPL for contributing back. > >> We'd have to figure out how to stitch those changes together, but from the >> guidance I got I don't believe this would be prohibited by the board. >> Without the dual licensing it would be much harder to create these sort of >> enhancements as the original class could only be used in binary form. >> >> I don't believe anyone is concerned with Aether becoming "unusable" for >> Maven. My understanding of the concern is that interaction with the >> repository(ies) and artifact resolution are areas that people still feel has >> lots of room for improvement and don't want to go to a different community >> to do it. The idea that one has to go outside of the Maven project to make >> changes to part of what many to be a core function is what is of concern. > > This is a theoretical concern because everyone seems to have found every > reason in the book not to help with the artifact resolution code for the last > how many years? Additionally, close to 100% of what anyone here in the Maven > project would be concerned with is in Maven SVN. The maven-aether-provider is > where it all happens, the rest of Aether has zero dependencies on Maven and > doesn't know what Maven is. So in practical terms you'd probably never need > anything in the Aether codebase but if you happened not a soul can cite a > single instance where Benjamin has not answered someone almost > instantaneously about any concerns or problems they had with Aether. > >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:31 AM, David Jencks wrote: >> >>> I also was just about to point out that the legal discuss thread indicated >>> that (b) and (c) are equivalent violations of apache policy. >>> >>> Since jason/sonatype doesn't want this code at apache, and the board >>> doesn't want us forking it somewhere else to use it because jason/sonatype >>> doesn't want the code at apache, I don't see why the dual licensing would >>> make any difference. We still can't bring the code here or fork it >>> anywhere else to use it inconsistently with the owners wishes. I think we >>> either use it as-is, or don't use it at all. >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind the idea that sonatype will >>> make aether unusable for maven (isn't this the basic concern over using >>> aether?). I don't see this as a plausible scenario. >>> >>> thanks >>> david jencks >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> >>>> The board made it pretty clear that option b is also highly discouraged so >>>> I wouldn't list that as an option. The only viable path I see will be to >>>> ultimately include the EPL version of Aether and then replace it with our >>>> own code when someone decides there is something they want to do that >>>> requires it. A dual licensed version of Aether would probably insure a >>>> complete replacement is never necessary. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:46 AM, Benson Margulies 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] >> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix > bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. > > -- Paul Graham > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
