On 31/07/2011, at 4:51 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Trading
> more or less insulting public emails with Jason does not qualify under
> that rubric, in my opinion.
Yes, personal attacks have no place here. Coming back after the weekend, I was
disappointed with the tone of the thread. Everyone n
On 31/07/2011, at 6:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Kristian,
>
> legal-discuss is a public list, with public archives. You can go read
> these remarks for yourself in the archive. I apologize for assuming
> that you or anyone else didn't know that. Yes I am a member, but Ralph
> and I are not
I would suggest you re-read Brett's last email as to why we continue to have
this discussion. He seems to be able to word things a bit better than me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
That's fine, but who ensures us that you wont change your mind again?
But fair enough, it will be much better at Eclipse than somewhere in the wild.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sat, 7/30/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
&
at, 7/30/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Saturday, July 30, 2011, 9:08 PM
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> > Many things changed within
On Jul 30, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>> It is not for legal reasons. The policy is that we cannot fork software
>> whose copyright owners do not wish us to do so.
>>
>
> So then you can't fork any version of Aether. So why are we continuing this
> discussion? Be a committer o
On Jul 30, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> See below
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> See below.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jason van Z
See below
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> See below.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote
On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Many things changed within the ASF which made me extremely uncomfortable, and
> everyone is entitled to change their opinions and their decisions. It's not
> as if everything remained immutable on the ASF side. Yes, I changed my mind
> and de
ay 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, 7/30/1
hat 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 wrote:
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
> To: "Maven Developers List&qu
On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Jason. please read my post carefully. i did not say you were a thief, i said
> there may be others who feel you are... i also said i do not agree with that
> point of view.
Sorry, I read it incorrectly.
>
> i will gladly accept your offer
On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> See below.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a
>>> change that A
Jason. please read my post carefully. i did not say you were a thief, i said
there may be others who feel you are... i also said i do not agree with that
point of view.
i will gladly accept your offer to remove the merit wall.
i am just interested in making the code easy to develop and fix, for t
See below.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a
>> change that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the
>>
Kristian,
legal-discuss is a public list, with public archives. You can go read
these remarks for yourself in the archive. I apologize for assuming
that you or anyone else didn't know that. Yes I am a member, but Ralph
and I are not quoting any private crap.
Note that some Ralph posed a relativel
Le samedi 30 juillet 2011, John Casey a écrit :
> But, how can we keep it from leaking into plugins, when it's using the
> same plexus component system as the rest of Maven?
>
> This has long been a problem inside Maven, namely that we can't control
> _which_ components plugin devs have access to,
On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a change
> that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the
> original class could be taken and modified as necessary.
Makes no difference. You could fork
lø., 30.07.2011 kl. 14.51 -0400, skrev Benson Margulies:
> Commits were made that caused Maven to depend on
> code outside of Apache. What's now clear is that this was a one-way
> street, *whatever the license on the code*, due to the policy
> requirement for voluntary contributions.
Techn
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
On Jul 30, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a
>> change that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the
>> original class could be ta
tly doomed to be
>>> completely depending on an external project which was a central part of
>>> maven-core short time ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Sat, 7/30/11, Stephen Connolly
>>> wrote
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a change
> that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the
> original class could be taken and modified as necessary.
Ralph, I'd like to really unders
ter can participate if he likes.
>> Of course, the doors are not closed, but we are currently doomed to be
>> completely depending on an external project which was a central part of
>> maven-core short time ago.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
The dual license makes a difference because if someone wants to make a change
that Aether doesn't want it can easily be incorporated here since the original
class could be taken and modified as necessary. We'd have to figure out how to
stitch those changes together, but from the guidance I got I
Stephen,
The problem we have here is that, under point (2), the horse has
already left the barn. Or, at least, we'd need to re-evolve from
Hyracotherium (Maven 2.2) back to Equus to really get rid of this
problem. Maybe the move to Eclipse will result in a more open and
equitable process of establ
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
wor
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
th
Can we create our own, new API that plugins should use for this? Eventually
all of Maven could use that instead of Aether directly.
Ralph
On Jul 30, 2011, at 10:25 AM, John Casey wrote:
> On 7/30/11 9:00 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>> well it seems to me that we need to ensure that aether is n
gt; --- On Sat, 7/30/11, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> From: Stephen Connolly
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
>> To: "Maven Developers List"
>> Date: Saturday, July 30, 2011, 1:00 PM
>> well it seems to me that we need to
>> ensur
On 7/30/11 9:00 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
well it seems to me that we need to ensure that aether is not leaking into
our public api. if it is entirely private from plugins, then i really don't
care if it is epl or dual...
I agree completely.
But, how can we keep it from leaking into plugins,
med to be
completely depending on an external project which was a central part of
maven-core short time ago.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --- On Sat, 7/30/11, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
>
>> From: Stephen Connolly
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
>
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 req
e if he likes.
Of course, the doors are not closed, but we are currently doomed to be
completely depending on an external project which was a central part of
maven-core short time ago.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sat, 7/30/11, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> From: Stephen Connolly
> Subject: Re: [
well it seems to me that we need to ensure that aether is not leaking into
our public api. if it is entirely private from plugins, then i really don't
care if it is epl or dual... dual would be nicer, and truer to the original
plan whereby the code would be developed at github for speed, and then g
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, "legal
I'm not entirely sure, but I think that there may be a false dilemma
here on the subject of forks.
In general, the Foundation does not permit us to absorb large amounts
of code without a formal grant, even if the code carries AL markings.
This has come up in the incubator over and over. So, even i
r at Eclipse.
>
[1]: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html
[2]: http://eclipse.org/proposals/technology.aether/
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Sun, 7/17/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> From: Jason van Zyl
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aeth
On 7/18/11 5:23 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
I worked on Aether to extract Maven specific parts (into maven-aether-
provider): AFAIK, we are completely free to change anything in the formats
used by Maven, either for POM or repositories.
About licensing, I don't have any concern about EPL at Eclip
On 7/17/11 12:08 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
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'
I worked on Aether to extract Maven specific parts (into maven-aether-
provider): AFAIK, we are completely free to change anything in the formats
used by Maven, either for POM or repositories.
About licensing, I don't have any concern about EPL at Eclipse. The initial
announced intend was to mov
1.12 is EPL only :
https://github.com/sonatype/sonatype-aether/blob/aether-1.12/README.md
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> Just reading this thread and was surprised as I wasn't aware Aether had
> gone EPL only.
>
> I was about to start a thread around getting a Maven 3.
Just reading this thread and was surprised as I wasn't aware Aether had
gone EPL only.
I was about to start a thread around getting a Maven 3.0.4 release
pushed out using Aether 1.12 which solves a, IMHO -MAJOR- bug in Maven
that prevents artifacts from being resolved properly when they come
kristian, I want to repeat that b.b. has been perfectly hospitable
about my little patch and proposal for a bigger one. your message,
with which I have no disagreement, might give a casual reader another
impression.
On Jul 17, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Kristian Rosenvold
wrote:
> sø., 17.07.2011 kl. 09.
sø., 17.07.2011 kl. 09.26 -0400, skrev Benson Margulies:
> After re-reading the ASF legal licensing policy, I'm starting this
> thread to formally propose that the Maven incorporate versions of
> Aether that are EPL without an AL dual-license. As per convention,
> someone can make a VOTE thread on
son Margulies
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 7:44 PM
> There's a technical point of interest
> here. Aether has a very
> extensive separation of interface and implementation. So,
> the
There's a technical point of interest here. Aether has a very
extensive separation of interface and implementation. So, there's a
great deal that we could do unilaterally while still using the EPL
core. The existence of 'central', I'm reasonably sure, is not inside
of Aether itself at all. I don't
On Jul 17, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> 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
ther or to fork it if not necessary.
But otoh not being able to fork it if there were problems is imo a no-go.
Also, there are a few contributors eager to ship patches it seems...
txs and LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sun, 7/17/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Subject: Re: [DISCU
I don't believe Eclipse has a problem using code
from Apache.
[1]:
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/viewvc.cgi/org.eclipse.orbit/?root=Tools_Project
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Sun, 7/17/11, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> From: Ralph Goers
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] inco
es
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> 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 s
>
> 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 subm
are not under their control. And that also had nothing to do
with any sentiment regarding a particular license but solely with the question
of the maintainability.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sun, 7/17/11, Ralph Goers wrote:
> From: Ralph Goers
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aeth
On Jul 17, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> So, the document states that the PMC decided that category B's are
> acceptable by majority vote. As per standard ASF community norms, it's
> better to give people a chance to achieve consensus and vote to affirm
> it than to just stage a vot
nside Maven.
>>
>> I tried to introduce such an interface layer for a few days but failed due
>> to the deep integration...
>>
>> So I'd definitely -1 a EPL core dependency which once was part of maven core
>> as long as there is no ALv2 alternative which we can
ency which once was part of maven core
>> as long as there is no ALv2 alternative which we can bugfix ourselfs!
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> --- On Sun, 7/17/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> From: Benson Margulies
>>> Subject: [DISCUSS]
ch we can bugfix ourselfs!
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Sun, 7/17/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> From: Benson Margulies
>> Subject: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
>> To: "Maven Developers List"
>> Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 1:26 PM
>> Af
definitely -1 a EPL core dependency which once was part of maven core as
long as there is no ALv2 alternative which we can bugfix ourselfs!
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Sun, 7/17/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies
> Subject: [DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether
> To: "Maven De
After re-reading the ASF legal licensing policy, I'm starting this
thread to formally propose that the Maven incorporate versions of
Aether that are EPL without an AL dual-license. As per convention,
someone can make a VOTE thread once voices have been heard here.
EPL is 'Category B'. Binary redi
59 matches
Mail list logo
