-0 I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. I'd accept it if there's no better way to get the problems fixed for whoever is working to fix them. I don't think it's good to get stuck on an old version no one is maintaining. I'm happy to discuss ideas for alternatives.
However, I would strongly prefer it to remain dual licensed: - it gives us more options if we need to incorporate source code changes that aren't accepted upstream, particularly if goals change over time - consumers know what they are getting from Maven - it can all be used under the terms of the AL 2.0. - it had the terms of the AL 2.0 when we agreed to incorporate it I continue to hope that will be reconsidered. FWIW, I don't have any argument with regard to the EPL as a license, I just believe AL 2.0 is appropriate here given its history, the early state of community development, and with Maven as its primary consumer. - Brett On 28/07/2011, at 4:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven > releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. > The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined > according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a > thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
