Just to be clear, I was expressing my support that the veto was valid. I
didn't see the point in adding to the pile of -1's, each of which would
have to be rescinded individually. Like Ralph, I think now we've got
some momentum started where we can resolve this without such
confrontational mean
Although the PMC has not approved a policy yet, it has been making good
progress and I am confident that we will have a policy in very short order. As
a consequence I am now rescinding my veto. Note though that this change may be
subject to review by the PMC when that policy is formalized - but
+1
sent from my phone
On Jan 25, 2011 5:12 PM, "Carlos Sanchez" wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> When some guy who done virtually nothing for two years vetoes someone
[else] then it's not a meritocrac
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> When some guy who done virtually nothing for two years vetoes someone [else]
>> then it's not a meritocracy, it's ridiculous is what it is.
>
> That was out of line. There is no co
On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> When some guy who done virtually nothing for two years vetoes someone [else]
>> then it's not a meritocracy, it's ridiculous is what it is.
>
> That was out of line. There is no cont
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> When some guy who done virtually nothing for two years vetoes someone [else]
> then it's not a meritocracy, it's ridiculous is what it is.
That was out of line. There is no contribution threshold before you
are allowed to have an opinion
On 1/25/11 11:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
My understanding is that once the policy has been approved the veto will
either be removed, or the policy will make clear what is to be done.
The PMCs choice is to accept EPL licensed artifacts
On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> My understanding is that once the policy has been approved the veto will
> either be removed, or the policy will make clear what is to be done.
>
The PMCs choice is to accept EPL licensed artifacts that don't come from
Apache, or you ca
On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> Also you cannot bundle the source of an EPL licensed project within an
> Apache distribution. Whereas you can bundle the source of an ASL
> licensed project within an Apache distribution.
>
We don't do that with anything anyway? We don't
No, don't move this to the PMC list. I'm not on that list and I believe this
discussion should be held in public view.
On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:17 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
> Can I suggest that such debate moves to the PMC list ?
>
> Not sure discussion about licensing and in/out hosting of core
ub
--- On Tue, 1/25/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1062210 - /maven/maven-3/trunk/pom.xml
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 4:11 PM
>
> On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
&g
On 25 January 2011 16:16, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> 2011/1/25 Jason van Zyl :
>>> EPL is more restrictive than ASLv2, therefore it is OK for EPL licensed
>>> projects to consume ASLv2 code... on the other hand it is not so acceptible
>>> for ASLv2 licensed projects to consume EPL licensed projects
2011/1/25 Jason van Zyl
>
> On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> > EPL is more restrictive than ASLv2, therefore it is OK for EPL licensed
> > projects to consume ASLv2 code... on the other hand it is not so
> acceptible
> > for ASLv2 licensed projects to consume EPL licensed
Lets end the debate on this pending the ongoing PMC discussions. There
isn't a release pending that I'm aware of that needs this change to be
committed urgently, so there's no need to rush to judgement on
anything, or to further debate what can and can't be done with
licenses at Apache. The policy
Can I suggest that such debate moves to the PMC list ?
Not sure discussion about licensing and in/out hosting of core components
should occur here
2011/1/25 Jason van Zyl
>
> On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> > On 25 January 2011 15:47, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> >> On
2011/1/25 Jason van Zyl :
>> EPL is more restrictive than ASLv2, therefore it is OK for EPL licensed
>> projects to consume ASLv2 code... on the other hand it is not so acceptible
>> for ASLv2 licensed projects to consume EPL licensed projects.
>
> That is completely not true. Read the actual docum
On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 25 January 2011 15:47, Jason van Zyl 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
On 25 January 2011 15:47, Jason van Zyl 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
bit odd
to veto inclusion of one dependency based on views about a separate
dependency...
--
Cheers, Stuart
LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --- On Tue, 1/25/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> > From: Benson Margulies
> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1062210 - /maven/maven-3/trunk/
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jason van Zyl 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 thin
; strub
>
>
> --- On Tue, 1/25/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> From: Benson Margulies
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1062210 - /maven/maven-3/trunk/pom.xml
>> To: "Maven Developers List"
>> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 2:17 PM
>> If you will all
strub
--- On Tue, 1/25/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1062210 - /maven/maven-3/trunk/pom.xml
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 2:17 PM
> If you will all excuse a voice from
> the peanut ga
If you will all excuse a voice from the peanut gallery:
Many PMCs take a very relaxed attitude toward external dependencies
that are self-evidently qualified under the 'previously answered
questions' list from Apache Legal. At CXF, for example, no one even
raises an eyebrow about adding a 'categor
On Jan 24, 2011, at 9:16 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2011, at 4:34 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> From what I can tell Sisu was previously under the Apache license but now
>> also seems to have the EPL attached to it. Until the PMC makes a decision on
>> how it is going to handle depend
On 23/01/2011, at 4:34 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> From what I can tell Sisu was previously under the Apache license but now
> also seems to have the EPL attached to it. Until the PMC makes a decision on
> how it is going to handle dependencies being managed by Sonatype I must veto
> any version
On Jan 22, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> From what I can tell Sisu was previously under the Apache license but now
> also seems to have the EPL attached to it. Until the PMC makes a decision on
> how it is going to handle dependencies being managed by Sonatype I must veto
> any versio
On Jan 22, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> From what I can tell Sisu was previously under the Apache license but now
> also seems to have the EPL attached to it. Until the PMC makes a decision on
> how it is going to handle dependencies being managed by Sonatype I must veto
> any versi
From what I can tell Sisu was previously under the Apache license but now also
seems to have the EPL attached to it. Until the PMC makes a decision on how it
is going to handle dependencies being managed by Sonatype I must veto any
version changes on these artifacts. Please revert this change.
28 matches
Mail list logo
