It's important to separate the pragmatism from the license concern.  <div><br></div><div>I fully support the pragmatism of shipping libraries with activities as a temporary solution, if that's what is needed to make the activity work.</div> <div><br></div><div>If the license *requires* us to include the source code to the compiled module (is a link sufficient??) in the activity bundle, I guess we have to do that too.  But that's a separate issue.</div><div> <br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Wade<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Luke Faraone <span dir="ltr"><luke@faraone.cc></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Nirav Patel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:olpc@spongezone.net" target="_blank">olpc@spongezone.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"> I prefer to look at it pragmatically.  Until there is some kind of<br> dependency handling for .xo packages, this is the difference between a<br> child at an existing deployment being able to browse to the wiki,<br> download an activity, and use it, or not being able to.</blockquote></div><div><br>It's also the difference between following the license terms and not.<br></div></div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>-- <br>Luke Faraone<br> <a href="http://luke.faraone.cc" target="_blank">http://luke.faraone.cc</a><br> </div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br> Sugar-devel mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a><br> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br></div>