But that's the choice you're forced to make by OAuth, not Twitter. And it is YOUR choice. Personally, I would probably use the conventional mechanisms of open source: mailing lists, special interest and user groups. Pound the pavement and promote yourself. Who said it was going to be "easy"?
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM, JDG<[email protected]> wrote: > The problem is that by everyone getting their own consumer keys, the source > parameter will be different for every person. Now, I'm not interested in > getting my name in lights in the Twitter world -- I could honestly care > less. That said, if I'm going to spend a significant portion of my time > creating an open source app for people to enjoy, I'd like for people to > actually know that they can use it, and the source parameter is by far the > easiest way to accomplish that. > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 09:10, Andrew Badera <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> No one's snarking, but again, interesting you would interpret it that way. >> >> Open source all you want, each person deploying an instance will have >> to get their own keys. What's so tough about that? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:07 AM, DWRoelands<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Andrew, >> > >> > This isn't about credit in the source parameter. It's about >> > application security. >> > >> > Twitter has stated that Basic Auth will eventually be deprecated. >> > OAuth will eventually be the only method of authentication available. >> > When that happens, developers of open source clients will be forced to >> > reveal their Consumer Key Secret. >> > >> > This is a very real problem; open-source developers of desktop clients >> > will have to reveal their Consumer Key Secret. >> > >> > Can we keep this discussion focused on the technical issues at hand, >> > rather than snarking about one another's motives? It's not >> > productive. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Duane >> > >> > >> > On Jul 1, 10:57 am, Andrew Badera <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Not what I said in the least, but it's interesting that you should >> >> interpret it that way. >> >> >> >> Re-read what I said. >> >> >> >> If someone is open sourcing something, in the true spirit of open >> >> source, they shouldn't care about getting credit in the source >> >> parameter. >> >> >> >> Thanks you and good night, I'm here all week, try the veal, don't >> >> forget to tip your waitresses and angry developers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Cameron Kaiser<[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Yes, but don't distribute it. Obviously config files are human >> >> >> readable, but you blank out secrets before publishing them. >> >> >> >> >> People using open source libraries will have to get their own keys. >> >> >> So, either you really are contributing in the spirit of open source, >> >> >> and you don't care about getting credit, or you're doing it for self >> >> >> promotional purposes, and the conversation is moot anyhow. >> >> >> >> > That's an asinine statement. So everybody who doesn't make their open >> >> > source software anonymous is a publicity whore? >> >> >> >> > -- >> >> > ------------------------------------ >> >> > personal:http://www.cameronkaiser.com/-- >> >> > Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems *www.floodgap.com* >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > -- In memory of John Banner >> >> > --------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > -- > Internets. Serious business. >
