-1 for the reasons already mentioned, and I'm one who tries to donate from time to time.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025, 08:23 Fridrich Strba <[email protected]> wrote: > Not sure whether my opinion here matters, but... > > If the support companies and individuals are embedded in the pom.xml > files, they will be in that version forever. So every time one rebuilds > an old package, there will be information that might be completely > obsolete. And believe me, it will become obsolete at a certain point. > > This is also making it quite difficult to create a diverse support > eco-system around a package. You will surely have only one company > listed at the end of the build. What about the others that would like to > enter? That will create clear barrier to entry and a bad blood. Which > might be worse then not having anything at all there. > > Similar questions were facing LibreOffice when we forked it in 2010 and > we came there with this web-page > https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/professional-support . It might be > slightly outdated, but it has a complete information for those that need > enterprise support and it is one place to keep updating. And eventually > that link could be featured prominently on the download page of the > sources/binaries. > > Mes 2 centimes à moi. > > F. > > > > On 28/08/2025 03:36, Olivier Lamy wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for your reply. > > I wouldn’t really see this as spamming. It will be only two extra > > lines at the end of a Maven build, with an easy opt-out (env var or > > sys prop) for anyone who prefers not to see it. > > It seems essential to keep it independent of vendors (GitHub, > > Sonatype, etc.). A few lines (link to url which could be simply GH > > funding url) in the POM keep it simple and entirely under the > > project’s control, avoiding the hassle of new files, signatures, or > > repository manager checks. > > It feels like a lightweight way to surface funding or support options > > for open source projects. > > Since open source often relies on unpaid time and effort, having an > > easy mechanism to point to support opportunities could be a small but > > helpful step. > > > > On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 at 02:02, Bernd Eckenfels <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Martin Todorov wrote on 22. Aug 2025 13:14 (GMT +02:00): > >> > >>> I don't think this is spam. It's a way for developers to get an extra > >>> stream of income to work on the things they love. > >> > >> I would not put it into the POM, those are ethernal and immutable and > we try to mini ihr them. > >> > >> Maybe a separate sponsors.xml as a extra artifact is better - or we get > an Organisation which already runs a Sponsoring program like GitHub to > define an official mapping from coordinatea to projects. Or maybe Sonatype > since they would be able to correlate? > >> > >> If you want to keep it in the POM a rather neutral attribute like a > @sponsor-search=true flag besides the project url would allow the discovery > (on that page). Then we would have to define that only the latest Version > of each artifact is to be consulted. But not sure how possible a Schema > change is? > >> > >> Gruß > >> Bernd > >> — > >> https://bernd.eckenfels.net > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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] > >
