On 04/27/2010 08:00 PM, John Meyer wrote:
> 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?
You shouldn't have to use a "browser" to access the Twitter "allow/deny"
dialogue. But IIRC that's considered a "best practice." I've never tried
it with Lynx, either. ;-)

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

"A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." ~ Paul Erdős

Reply via email to