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: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
