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?

                                               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.
GNU: never give up freedom    

vos-d mailing list

Reply via email to