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.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Tue, 1/25/11, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1062210 - /maven/maven-3/trunk/pom.xml
> To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 2:17 PM
> 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 'category A' dependency to
> a non-ASF
> / non-ASL component. If some folks would like the maven PMC
> to hold a
> vote to adopt that attitude, might I suggest that you hold
> a vote for
> that idea and thus reduce the collective blood-pressure?
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 dependencies being managed by Sonatype I
> must veto any version changes on these artifacts. Please
> revert this change.
> >>
> >> So, normally a veto is worked through until
> consensus is reached rather than just dropping the change.
> It's a harsh step, but only applies to a single change and
> not a block on all changes. There's no need for
> overreactions, let's just try and resolve it.
> >>
> >> Is the only way to move forward to determine how
> to handle third-party dependencies, and how to apply it to
> current ones? Or is there another suggestion someone would
> like to make?
> >>
> >> - Brett
> >
> > All I asked for was for the PMC to define a policy -
> any policy - and then I'd remove the veto. Even a policy of
> "we don't care as long as it meets licensing requirements"
> would suffice. I am just requesting that the PMC formally
> state what it wants to do for the record.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
