yes, Exactly, Herve, and adding more because this principle with NPM *>> 117 packages are looking for funding>> run `npm fund` for details * would mean that the IT science could be measured using fundings & a creeping corruption based on money *over* the IT logic & fair & equal IT life as an open source family. Then the command *mvn found* may cause this:
*Maven Resolver reached 1000 as a foundation index* * Maven Compiler reached 1 as a foundation index * * Maven Core reached 100 as a foundation index * but this has no value for the Maven itself if the Resolver was used as a component in some IDE or a rich founder and producer of IDE or whatever other product. And then "a little donation" of one component over another Maven component would mean that the rich component would be used by Maven only up to 50% of the total number of features. And this has nothing to do with IT, nothing but a pure business. If Olivier Lamy is dreaming of "little donation" in Open Source, then yes, my bank account has plenty of "little" coins for all of such people, even hundreds, who cannot survive in their commercial company and require "little" coins because the IT firms are what, they are dying? , no, not for sure, at least, not yet now! Btw, I am changing my career and have no income for quite some time, paying retraining courses for myself, etc, but I would never ever ask this question at the OSS, because this is the bottom of the most bottom financial question at the Open source. WDYT? Tibor On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 8:31 AM Hervé Boutemy <[email protected]> wrote: > funding: complex topic, no silver bullet, require vast and diverse > contributions... > > adding a few pure conventional property names in pom.xml is an easy first > step: we already did such conventions on small things (like default > encoding, activation of Reproducible Builds, etc...) > each time, it just required a good doc in a Wiki to have a chance for > people to learn about the convention > and no need for global form of consensus to start: it's "just" a convention > no need for strong global consensus either on creating a plugin goal that > uses the convention > > the only strong consensus would be if we want to add by default a one line > summary independently of a plugin: we're not there > > will it solve everything? no (as shown by npm case), but it's a step and a > way to try to move softly instead of just complaining > so could be a good tactical try > > > at wider level, funding/support clarifications is part of the use cases > for SBOMs, even if not yet concrete: other use cases for SBOMs are in > progress and proven as not so easy to make a uniform approach for everybody > > > I'm in for a small step in the right direction: > - documentation for such properties (ideally with references of what has > been done in other ecosystems: npm comes to mind, other cases welcome) > - new goal on some plugin > this will also permit to start listing example of funding examples seen > here and there > > it won't solve everything, nothing can solve everything > it's simple, concrete, pragmatic > > Regards, > > Hervé > > On 2025/08/22 08:52:06 Olivier Lamy wrote: > > Hi, > > While having a play with npm recently, I came across this message: > > 117 packages are looking for funding > > run `npm fund` for details > > > > That got me thinking, why don’t we have something similar in the Maven > > ecosystem? > > > > Plenty of the artifacts published to Maven Central come from > > individuals who’d probably appreciate a small donation (a bit of “beer > > money”), or from companies that provide professional or commercial > > support for their open-source libraries. GitHub already offers a > > funding button, but in the Maven world, we don’t help surface this > > sort of information. > > > > So here’s an idea: what if projects could include > > documented/formalised metadata in their POMs that Maven core and/or > > plugins could use? Since we can’t change the POM structure itself, we > > could start with some standardised properties, for example: > > > > <properties> > > <support.commercial.0>URL</support.commercial.0> > > <support.eol.0>DATE</support.eol.0> > > <support.security.0>DATE</support.security.0> > > <support.commercial.1>URL</support.commercial.1> > > > > <funding.url.0>URL</funding.url.0> > > <funding.url.1>URL</funding.url.1> > > </properties> > > > > We could then imagine new goals such as: > > - dependency:fund > > - dependency:support > > > > And, just like npm, Maven could finish the build with a simple summary: > > > > X artefacts have commercial support or are looking for funding > > run mvn dependency:fund or mvn dependency:support for details > > > > To be clear, this isn’t about Apache Maven requiring the metadata, but > > rather about encouraging a general convention for artifacts in Maven > > Central. > > > > What do you reckon? > > > > Cheers, > > Olivier > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > >
