Re: [w3c/webcomponents] Alternative proposal for closed shadow DOM (#499)

> But you've made the decision for developers using your component that it is complete, regardless of whether it does what they're actually trying to use it for.

As the developer of a component, the writer and copyright holder of a piece of software, isn't that my prerogative? You're telling me that I shouldn't be allowed to decide how my component is used?

> A more complex point is bundling. Say you've created the best spreadsheet web component ever, and you'd like to heavily brand it, or to advertise within it. By making it a "closed" web component, you're telling the application developer that they have no choice in this -- that they must allow you to show their users these in your application.

You don't need a closed shadow tree for this, a restrictive license would be enough.  Look at the [FlowPlayer license](https://github.com/flowplayer/flowplayer/blob/master/LICENSE.md), for example, and FlowPlayer's component doesn't use shadow DOM (yet).

If a component is truly open source and its shadow tree is closed—and this bothers you—, fork it and do whatever you want with it.  If the component is not truly open source and its shadow is closed, then you can either get around the closed tree the "hard" way and modify it while staying in the terms of the license or move on and don't use it.

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/499#issuecomment-218981650