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 components > should occur here > > 2011/1/25 Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> > >> >> On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: >> >>> On 25 January 2011 15:47, 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. >>>> >>>> >>> See: www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html >>> >>> There are a number of issues with how the various dependencies can get >>> consumed. The PMC has yet to issue a ploicy on what kinds of dependencies >>> are permitted for maven-core. When the PMC has decided the policy that >> will >>> be communicated to the committers of Maven. >>> >>> 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 document you linked to. An >> Apache project can consume EPL binaries. >> >>> There are >>> ways for an Apache project to consume and distribute EPL licensed code, >> >> Yes, it's documented in the link you provided. >> >>> however given that the PMC is currently working on the policy for Maven's >>> core dependencies, Ralph has decided to temporarily veto any change of a >>> dependency in maven-core to a non-Category A license. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> I can appreciate that for somebody who has resigned from the PMC and the >>> Apache foundation it may appear that the veto has come out of thin air. >>> >>> -Stephen >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To do two things at once is to do neither. >> >> -—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C. >> >> >> >> Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as signs of decline and decay. -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition
