[sldev] Proprietary dependencies

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 2008-01-26, at 21:44, Dzonatas wrote:
> Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>> But just switching from static to shared libraries doesn't do  
>> that. And that's the point I'm making.

> I did not suggest to just switch from static to shared.

"We've heard the issue saying that it makes installation easier, but  
that is all that is being said. If the installation scripts and  
procedure were made to handle dynamic libraries, the issue of there  
being a proprietary or open-source library attached become really a  
non-issue as long as they are dynamically linked."

The following paragraph, beginning with "Further, the client code  
could..." after the line "That is one part there" did not appear to  
be an essential part of the proposal, because it DID begin with  
"Further...". So I responded to that separately.

That's one part there.

Further, that doesn't deal with the main point, the one I'm trying to  
get back to, which is that Linden Labs has to be a part of any such  
scheme, and Linden Labs has indicated reluctance to even support a  
far less ambitious proposal.