Sorry to resurrect this, but after working with s5 for two months, I still have the same concerns, only more so :-)
Also spracht Lalo Martins (Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:55:19 +0000): > Also spracht Peter Amstutz (Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:43:45 -0500): >> With regard to shipping the private key, my thinking is that publishing >> an API is like specifying a protocol, and that you really want a way of >> unambigiously referring to a specific API as published by a specific >> entity at a specific version. > > Hmm... no, I don't think I for one want that. It would mean I can't > make changes to third-party library from source A and still have > third-party software from source B work against it without a manual > hack-and- recompile. That would be against the spirit of Free Software, > and the letter of the LGPLv3 (which I see you picked for s5 and I > approve of). > > Yes, it would be nice to have a way of *referring* to a specific (...) > as you say. But having all code by default *depend* on a specific > version published by a specific entity? Bad idea, IMO. > > For the matter, I don't think Libraries should be distributed as a site, > at all. I think they should just import the Library object into the > local host (possibly inside some "safe" location like /otd or /libraries > or even /lib). But it seems you have put some thought behind this > decision; would you mind sharing your reasoning with us? best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. ----- http://lalomartins.info/ GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ _______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d