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
