Sure, if aether gets back being dual licensing then all would be fine. The Maven project has good relationship with Sonatype so I'm sure the EPL is not a problem today. But if the license is not a CategoryA license, then we cannot make sure it will not become a problem in the future. Because we cannot fork it and maintain it ourself in case any problem arises!
So - from a pure manager perspective - this is a imo no-go. You would also not build your business on pure good will, isn't? LieGrue, strub --- On Sun, 7/17/11, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Benson Margulies <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether > To: "Maven Developers List" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 4:08 PM > > > > I think you are going to have to. Mark isn't the only > one who has expressed the sentiment. Some of the discussions > I've seen on changing the relationship Maven has with > repository managers would surely require changes at the > Aether layer. > > I don't follow your last sentence. I just submitted a patch > to Aether, > and it was cordially received, but there is, of course, no > guarantee. > This thread started out as a discussion of licensing, not > control. If > Sonatype put the dual license back today, there would be no > vote > required to update to a new version of Aether, and mods to > Aether > would still require cooperation with Sonatype. > > So, I can imagine a thread of discussion about forking > Aether (or > anything else) to achieve control, but that's not this > thread. > > My primary view in opposition to forking is the this: > > Sonatype and the Maven PMC share an interest in the success > of Maven. > The current situation isn't ideal, but it could be a whole > lot worse. > Based on recent history, I don't personally believe that > dramatic > tactics are the best option to achieve cooperation here. > Forking > would, in my opinion, come in under the category of 'a > dramatic > tactic.' > > My secondary argument has to do with workload. This > development > community is trying to maintain a giant raft of stuff. > Deciding to > fork these components without any visible plan to find the > effort to > work on them would be, in my opinion, 'shooting ourselves > in the > feet'. I might go so far as to ask people proposing a fork > to list > their recent commits to core Maven code. > > Another way to put this: > > If there is a majority of PMC members willing to vote +1 to > just > accept Aether as EPL (which means more work if relations > with Sonatype > degenerate and we wish to disentangle), let's do that. > > If there isn't, then the next step in my view is to talk to > Sonatype > about the dual license. > > I personally thing that it is nuts to fork without talking > to Sonatype first. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
