Ok, I'll pick up from Ralph's discussion. On Jul 29, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> -0 > > I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. I'd accept it if there's > no better way to get the problems fixed for whoever is working to fix them. I > don't think it's good to get stuck on an old version no one is maintaining. > I'm happy to discuss ideas for alternatives. > > However, I would strongly prefer it to remain dual licensed: > - it gives us more options if we need to incorporate source code changes that > aren't accepted upstream, particularly if goals change over time If you can't fork any version of Aether per ASF board guidelines/mandate (I'm only repeating what Ralph said) then what does it matter? And let's say this is not the case, worst case you fork it at Github, make your changes and create a binary. This doesn't hinder you from doing anything if the board changed it's mind on this policy. My preference would certainly be not to fork it but the license affords you that right. The chances that upstream requests for change are not accepted are close to zero, especially with a bunch of committers here on Aether. This is virtually no different than Plexus and Modello. Kristian made the last set of changes on a Plexus project and released them. I don't know when the last release of Modello happened but I think that was Hervé. > - consumers know what they are getting from Maven - it can all be used under > the terms of the AL 2.0. There's precedent for redistributing EPL at the ASF, and the EPL is commercially friendly. Millions of people use Eclipse, extend Eclipse so I really don't think users have a problem with the EPL. > - it had the terms of the AL 2.0 when we agreed to incorporate it > As I said to Mark things here have changed I prefer in the EPL and what it affords. If I have a choice of organization it's the Eclipse Foundation and the preference is not to dual license. We may not agree about foundations or licenses but our commonality is Maven users. If you believe you can serve them better by forking the code and not joining the Aether project then that's your prerogative. I can't honestly see how that would be, but you're free to do what you like. I can't see what danger Maven would ever be in with Aether being at Eclipse and EPL. Even less if people here chose to be committers on the project. The current count is 6 people here being committers on Aether. The more people from here over there the more likely your requests for change will be incorporated. > I continue to hope that will be reconsidered. > > FWIW, I don't have any argument with regard to the EPL as a license, I just > believe AL 2.0 is appropriate here given its history, the early state of > community development, and with Maven as its primary consumer. > > - Brett > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven >> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. >> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined >> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a >> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > -- > Brett Porter > br...@apache.org > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------- Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead. -- Unknown
