On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > Jason. please read my post carefully. i did not say you were a thief, i said > there may be others who feel you are... i also said i do not agree with that > point of view.
Sorry, I read it incorrectly. > > i will gladly accept your offer to remove the merit wall. > Done. You will have seen the email to Wayne Beaton on the EMO. You should be listed there on Monday. > i am just interested in making the code easy to develop and fix, for the > good of the users. That's all I care about. I really do not believe being at Eclipse changes that. > > - 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 20:26, "Jason van Zyl" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Please don't call me a thief. If you're talking about Aether and Sisu and > my decision to move those to Eclipse, they were never here and am > responsible for funding the vast majority of the code written in those > projects. As such do I not have the right to house those projects where I > wish? At an organization with people who have some respect for the work I > do? Where I'm not always getting attacked? Your last email a perfect case in > point. >> >> As for your merit wall, if you wish to be listed as a committer on the > Aether proposal I will list you as a committer. Merit wall removed. >> >> I doubt we are ever going to come to any agreement. I believe I am in the > right, you believe you are in the right. It doesn't really matter at this > point. Do you really find it that hard to comprehend given what's happened > that I'm not overly keen to keep pouring resources into the ASF? I still > care about Maven users and always will, but that does not mandate projects > that I work on be here. My passion and philosophy lie outside the ASF at > this point. That doesn't mean we can't be civil. I don't believe accusing me > of "stealing another project away to Eclipse" does much to move toward that. >> >> On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: >> >>> 1. are you seriously telling me that if acme corp were to fork aether, > and >>> do a shed-load of work on it, resulting in a far better aether than the >>> eclipse hosted one and it was still epl licensed, that the board would > view >>> that as a breach of policy? if the answer is yes, then this is a sad sad >>> world we live in. >>> >>> 2. i cannot speak for anyone else, but i am concerned that core maven >>> functionality is being moved behind another merit wall... if i want to > fix a >>> bug in core, my gut tells me 8 times out of 10 i will need to hit > aether... >>> having to cross a merit wall to do so is nuts... the whole point of > aether >>> being developed at github was to remove a merit wall... but then Jason >>> decided to move aether to eclipse, and the sonatype cla discouraged >>> collaboration, and we are where we are. there may be others who object >>> because they feel Jason is pushing our hand, and stealing another OSS >>> project to eclipse... but i am not obey of them. i am a merit wall > objector. >>> the only merit to work on a project is the work you are doing right > now... >>> Jenkins and github teach us that... eclipse is a higher merit wall than >>> apache, and that is my gripe with eclipse.... i have a similar gripe with >>> apache, but it is less if an issue for me as i am inside the wall! >>> >>> - 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 18:32, "David Jencks" <[email protected]> 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] >>>> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples. >> Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without >> actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one >> is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by >> looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples >> you look at, the more general your framework will be. >> >> -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks >> >> >> Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. -- Robert Pirzig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
