On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > The problem here is that fundamental maven functionality got moved over > to external jars. And now those jars got changed from ALv2 to EPL. Don't get > me wrong, EPL is not a bad thing, but we cannot contribute to this library > anymore without going all the (very stony) route of contributing patches to > the Eclipse foundation. If they refuse the patches then maven is doomed to > fail... As someone already mentioned: In the worst case maven3 will get > nothing more than a plugin processor for aether. From a project perspective > this is a no-go, so I strongly support the veto. > > > > Yet, on the other hand the Eclipse Foundation consumes many ASL licensed > artifacts from the ASF. You don't see their projects spouting this nonsense. > That a project at the Eclipse Foundation is doomed because it has to consume > dependencies from Apache? Contributing at Eclipse is no more thorny then > trying to contribute at the ASF. > > If an Apache project can only consume dependencies from within Apache and > nothing else is acceptable then that project is going to fail anyway. > > I've only been watching from the sidelines, but what Mark said resonated with me: "The problem here is that fundamental maven functionality got moved over to external jars." I interpret his words to mean if very important parts of Maven are outside Apache, and PMC members can't control those external releases, how does Maven's core continue to progress inside of Apache? I certainly see some hand tying here. I believe it's all about "fundamental maven functionality" being divided between two organizations -- I just don't see how that can be efficient no matter who the organizations are. Paul
