Please pause. Take a breath. Carefully read what I have pointed to
and am about to say before responding.
Is it legal for us to take the code that was forked and developed for
a while under a compatible license (and now is being further developed
under an incompatible license)? Abso-f'ing-lutely!!! (presuming we
are talking about the code prior to the incompatible license change).
What I see here is that we have a sh***y situation that people are
proposing to make worse by proposing procedural workarounds. My
initial reaction: that's ill advised. But that's not my call.
What I am saying is that if the Maven PMC wants to go down that path,
they had better be prepared to dot their I's and cross their T's.
Document the h**l out of what they are doing so that none of the
downstream consumers can question the provenance of the code. Be
prepared to answer hard questions. I'll certainly be asking a number
Matters of law are non-negotiable. Matters of policy are. However
you had better have a solid reason and a d**n good plan before you
challenge an established policy like everything here is a voluntary
contribution. Search the archives. For example, look at earlier
versions of the Apache License. It is a part of our DNA and who we
are at this point. It is not something we are going to change
I strongly encourage the Maven PMC to engage in a dialog with Sonatype
and/or use Aether as it is intended. If Sonatype says H**L NO and the
PMC collectively decides that it has the resources to bring up to date
and establish a clean codebase that meets their current needs, then
please present THAT plan, and don't focus on absurd hypothetical