- From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:10:54 -0500
- To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- cc: www-dom@w3.org
Given that the bindings _are_ freely available, though not freely modifiable, I don't see that this "discriminates against" open source. It's equivalent to the fact that said source is written in a particular programming language, which folks must adhere to in order to productively share code; it's part of the standard environment that the open source developers are buying into in order to cooperate effectively. And it doesn't even get in the way of producing derivitive APIs... as long as you derive them properly, by subclassing or by having objects implement multiple interfaces, rather than by trying to change the standardized DOM API directly. You might want to talk to the folks at Apache and ask them how they're handling it. I suspect that they are either (a) telling folks to obtain these interfaces separately before compiling, or (b) modifying their open source agreement to explain that some of what they ship is open source/modifiable, and some is exposed source/not-modifiable, and it's the hacker's responsibilty to read each file's header and understand which is which. "Open source" doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing affair. There are multiple open-source agreements running around; the OSD is only one instance thereof. If the one you're using is really preventing you from doing something reasonable, it's time to consider adjusting it. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 1999 17:11:13 UTC