> Many Java and C compilers are not freely distributable in source form > either, yet we support them... Okay, that's not the same thing,
As you say, it'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. As you said, Open Source IS a means to an end. That's why you are using it, because it IS an effective means. Closed source is not such an effective means. > > 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. Will you see something against it when Objectspace pulls it and you are left high and dry? > 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. >> >> >
