Many Java and C compilers are not freely distributable in source form either, yet we support them... Okay, that's not the same thing, but it seems we're in the business of spreading the Gospel of Christ not necessarily the Gospel of Open Source. My point is open source in all its glory is still just a means to an end, not necessarily the end in and of itself.
If an external library does it faster and more compact than we could on our own, I don't see anything against it, especially if we can distribute it ourselves and the end user doesn't even have to know. If it adds bloat and useless features we could avoid by doing it ourselves, then lets do it ourselves if feasible. Also if it's a very large and complicated project and a moving target and in a field where we're not all experts and something we really need (like Unicode, though Java already has that), let's use an external library too if there's a good one. It's your call. As always, I only speak my own opinions, the only ones I have... ;o) Dave At 11:28 PM 12/8/2001 +1100, Chris wrote: >So you are comfortable that Sword will depend on a library that you have >no right to distribute >in source form? >And if ObjectSpace ever pulled the library, you would have to, for all >practical purposes, >stop using it? Seems a high price to pay for something so minor as a >collection class. > >Troy A. Griffitts wrote: > >>>I just read the jgl licence. It's _not_ a free or open-source licence. >> >>Not sure your point. It is freely distributable by us in binary form, >>and I'm not trying to gain the world for RMS, but for Christ. >
