On 4/27/2010 8:29 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
On 04/27/2010 05:00 PM, John Meyer wrote:
On 4/27/2010 5:53 PM, Julio Biason wrote:
se it's open source it doesn't mean you can't charge for it.
So I'm guessing that's what John Meyer asked what open source have to
with money.

Actually what I was asking is what did money have to do with the way
that our applications authenticate themselves to Twitter (either through
Basic, oAuth or xAuth) and the method that we preferred based upon our
application.  I never intended an open source vs money arguement; what I
was trying to say is that while he had one way of doing a CLI client I
may have another that does require authentication. So why should mine
have to potentially break the application by using a browser?

It shouldn't. But mine will use the browser. And I will charge money for
it. It may or may not be open source - as people have pointed out, there
are precedents for charging money for open source software.

Okay do you mean that it shouldn't as in you don't think that I should have to use a browser to access it, or do you mean that it shouldn't in taht you don't think that me having to use a browser will break the interface?

Reply via email to