An unstable ABI isn’t the requirement, it is the result of the open source requirement further up the chain, which is the important part of the equation. The unstable ABI is a knock-on effect, not the driving cause.
And, for the second paragraph, I meant that it requires on-the-fly compilation, it needs to be more flexible. Any changes a particular project or user makes (as is their right, afforded to them by the open source licenses) needs to be incorporated in the entire chain.
The whole point of open source is to hand control and power to the end user of the software, whereas corporate interests align with taking that away. Having a stable ABI means locking down the ability to modify source code and compile it yourself, thereby stripping you of these very important freedoms.
Having a stable ABI means locking down the ability to modify source code and compile it yourself, thereby stripping you of these very important freedoms.
Sorry… can’t follow this reasoning.
Either the source is open (and thus open to modification) or it is not. Having a stable ABI has nothing to do with that. There are some systems in the Linux kernel that have not changed in ages (and are not allowed to change if the kernel developers are to be believed). Does that make the Linux kernel locked down in ones ability to modify the source code?
An unstable ABI isn’t the requirement, it is the result of the open source requirement further up the chain, which is the important part of the equation. The unstable ABI is a knock-on effect, not the driving cause.
And, for the second paragraph, I meant that it requires on-the-fly compilation, it needs to be more flexible. Any changes a particular project or user makes (as is their right, afforded to them by the open source licenses) needs to be incorporated in the entire chain.
The whole point of open source is to hand control and power to the end user of the software, whereas corporate interests align with taking that away. Having a stable ABI means locking down the ability to modify source code and compile it yourself, thereby stripping you of these very important freedoms.
Sorry… can’t follow this reasoning. Either the source is open (and thus open to modification) or it is not. Having a stable ABI has nothing to do with that. There are some systems in the Linux kernel that have not changed in ages (and are not allowed to change if the kernel developers are to be believed). Does that make the Linux kernel locked down in ones ability to modify the source code?
Really lost right now…