Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALhtWkfyv7rrC-kUe561o4TUC+FmN+FXwT=-F8O4p_WtOFfSEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1310926126.98383.YahooMailClassic@web27801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<EF0E00CC-6805-4D3C-AA53-5916EE0BD4E1@sonatype.com>
	<CALhtWke6VwGDons_HQB4LS8JaMCaQGUvwBc7g8_1rkoa3LmTbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALhtWkfyv7rrC-kUe561o4TUC+FmN+FXwT=-F8O4p_WtOFfSEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:00:52 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CA+nPnMyugoA9GAQYpvVFwFkoTawxKC05NwqZ0Pgrkx-gbw7rig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
From: Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>
To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3001b44de850eb04a948fcfb

--20cf3001b44de850eb04a948fcfb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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" <bimargulies@gmail.com> 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: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

--20cf3001b44de850eb04a948fcfb--