I know I stepped away from maven quite some time ago, jetty and other things just don't allow the time...but I have followed this discussion and I'll toss in my two cents.
I would be +1 on this and would come to the defense of jason and sonatype on this because no matter what you want to argue about what has and hasn't been done, they have done a ton of the work moving maven forward over the last few years. maven-artifact and a lot of its plumbing has been a bane and annoyance for users and developers with maven alike for years. Aether does the job of handling a chunk of the heavy lifting and if its at all better then what is there then its a no brainer imo. I have known Jason for years and I like to think of him as a friend and I have always thought that he acted with the end users of Maven in mind, what he thinks is best for them. I think that is one thing you can count on, if he is involved with it then the motives, corporate or otherwise, are to support the end users better. Now should that differ from what the maven developer community at large feels at some point in the future then any license currently being discussed has options available to the maven developers. Trying to penalize Jason directly or Sonatype as some of these comments/discussions have done (not necessarily on this thread) does not benefit the end user. I don't really see the point of delaying the vote until the eclipse process has completed either, better would be to cc wayne beaton in on this and ask for early acceptance to get the ball rolling. No reason to be antagonistic about all this. jesse -- jesse mcconnell jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:16, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > -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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
