> Rhetorical question--why would a company have such a policy? Companies don't usually make sense, you must be one of those people that think Dilbert is fiction :)
I have worked for more than one company that enforces this policy. They hate using open source for liability reasons, and hate you touching the code even more. > What happens if the code doesn't already have exactly the hook point you > need? Well if nothing was private or final this would never be the case would it? Unless the code was written badly and each function was too long. > As noted above, this is by the company's choice. They could have shipped > the hacked version. The could have copied the code and then modified it. > They did neither. As I mention, this is a real world solution and your workaround is not viable. > ...and many companies will not permit you to change open source code and > ship the changed versions (some afraid of licenses, > There is no problem with the Apache license here, so the companies are > being silly with Regards to Trinidad Not silly, it is actually a problem with liability. I don't agree with it really, but trust me, there are extremely good arguments for not modifying open source in a commercial product. > Your proposal that we make everything protected and tell the consumers to > hope for the best on upgrades does not decrease their maintenance burden. Why is it that this keeps coming back on hope and counting on the best? I keep saying that as a user, we *EXPECT* that it WILL break. The idea is a *temporary* solution until an API is available.
