Jason, please stick to the facts. Here is what I found after reading through the history in the private archives.
1.) the original artifact resolution mechanism was part of maven-core 2.) you wrote a new one which does certain things a bit better 3.) you told the Maven PMC that it will finally end up back in Maven. 4.) As a result of this promise work was done to replace the original maven owned code with your stuff. If the Maven PMC and the board would have known that aether would never made it over here, then they would NEVER EVER let any aether import hit the Maven SVN! NEVER! 5.) Aether got more and more complicated, and it doesn't have interfaces on the maven side not any other fixed set of SPI or API (imo a poor design decision). The result is that we now have aether imports like a kraken sitting in 30% of all maven-core classes. 6.) you switched your opinion and told the community that aether will not be part of maven. So one could argue that - from the effect - you stole the maven project a year of development or the ability to fix bugs themselfs. I don't say that you originally intended to do so in an intentional way. But that's what we have now! LieGrue, strub PS: Of course I know what you did for the project in the past, but that doesn't change that very topic. --- On Sat, 7/30/11, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether > To: "Maven Developers List" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, July 30, 2011, 7:25 PM > Please don't call me a thief. If > you're talking about Aether and Sisu and my decision to move > those to Eclipse, they were never here and am responsible > for funding the vast majority of the code written in those > projects. As such do I not have the right to house those > projects where I wish? At an organization with people who > have some respect for the work I do? Where I'm not always > getting attacked? Your last email a perfect case in point. > > As for your merit wall, if you wish to be listed as a > committer on the Aether proposal I will list you as a > committer. Merit wall removed. > > I doubt we are ever going to come to any agreement. I > believe I am in the right, you believe you are in the right. > It doesn't really matter at this point. Do you really find > it that hard to comprehend given what's happened that I'm > not overly keen to keep pouring resources into the ASF? I > still care about Maven users and always will, but that does > not mandate projects that I work on be here. My passion and > philosophy lie outside the ASF at this point. That doesn't > mean we can't be civil. I don't believe accusing me of > "stealing another project away to Eclipse" does much to move > toward that. > > On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > > 1. are you seriously telling me that if acme corp were > to fork aether, and > > do a shed-load of work on it, resulting in a far > better aether than the > > eclipse hosted one and it was still epl licensed, that > the board would view > > that as a breach of policy? if the answer is yes, then > this is a sad sad > > world we live in. > > > > 2. i cannot speak for anyone else, but i am concerned > that core maven > > functionality is being moved behind another merit > wall... if i want to fix a > > bug in core, my gut tells me 8 times out of 10 i will > need to hit aether... > > having to cross a merit wall to do so is nuts... the > whole point of aether > > being developed at github was to remove a merit > wall... but then Jason > > decided to move aether to eclipse, and the sonatype > cla discouraged > > collaboration, and we are where we are. there > may be others who object > > because they feel Jason is pushing our hand, and > stealing another OSS > > project to eclipse... but i am not obey of them. i am > a merit wall objector. > > the only merit to work on a project is the work you > are doing right now... > > Jenkins and github teach us that... eclipse is a > higher merit wall than > > apache, and that is my gripe with eclipse.... i have a > similar gripe with > > apache, but it is less if an issue for me as i am > inside the wall! > > > > - Stephen > > > > --- > > Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling > mistakes, random nonsense > > words and other nonsense are a direct result of using > swype to type on the > > screen > > On 30 Jul 2011 18:32, "David Jencks" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I also was just about to point out that the legal > discuss thread indicated > > that (b) and (c) are equivalent violations of apache > policy. > >> > >> Since jason/sonatype doesn't want this code at > apache, and the board > > doesn't want us forking it somewhere else to use it > because jason/sonatype > > doesn't want the code at apache, I don't see why the > dual licensing would > > make any difference. We still can't bring the code > here or fork it anywhere > > else to use it inconsistently with the owners wishes. > I think we either use > > it as-is, or don't use it at all. > >> > >> I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind the > idea that sonatype will > > make aether unusable for maven (isn't this the basic > concern over using > > aether?). I don't see this as a plausible scenario. > >> > >> thanks > >> david jencks > >> > >> On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> > >>> The board made it pretty clear that option b > is also highly discouraged > > so I wouldn't list that as an option. The only viable > path I see will be to > > ultimately include the EPL version of Aether and then > replace it with our > > own code when someone decides there is something they > want to do that > > requires it. A dual licensed version of Aether would > probably insure a > > complete replacement is never necessary. > >>> > >>> Ralph > >>> > >>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:46 AM, Benson Margulies > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'd like to to try to put a little oxygen > into this thread now, given > >>>> the rather clear results of the vote > thread. > >>>> > >>>> Ralph posed the following question on > Legal Discuss: 'Can the Maven > >>>> PMC pull a dual-licensed version of AEther > back into Apache without a > >>>> grant from Sonatype?' > >>>> > >>>> The answer was, "legally yes, but it is > counter to long-established > >>>> policy, and strongly discouraged by a > number of senior ASF people > >>>> (including a board member or two)". > >>>> > >>>> So, the community has some choices. It > seems to me that the viability > >>>> of these different choices depends on the > viability of walking away > >>>> from AEther. In practical terms, the > choices are: > >>>> > >>>> a) Use versions of AEther controlled by > 'someone else'. > >>>> b) Create our own 'someone else' at > apache-extras or elsewhere. > >>>> c) Go down the path of becoming an > exception to the policy and take on > >>>> reworking AEther from the last > dual-licensed version. > >>>> d) Start All Over Again from Maven 2.2. > >>>> > >>>> From the vote comments, it seemed to me > that a plurality of people > >>>> felt that EPL at Eclipse was tolerable. So > that argues for sitting > >>>> still for now. I offer only the > observation that forking into > >>>> apache-extras 'works' the same way today, > or after the code appears in > >>>> Eclipse. In other words, adopting what's > out there today only makes > >>>> choice (c) harder, it doesn't have any > impact that I see on a, b, or > >>>> d. However, a 'no' vote is a 'no' vote, so > this is all just food for > >>>> thought. > >>>> > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> 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] > >>> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete > examples. > Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper > without > actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. > No one > is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you > develop it by > looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The > more examples > you look at, the more general your framework will be. > > -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for > Evolving Frameworks > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
