LGPL requires you to contribute changes that you make to the Open Source Code back to the community.
With AOP, the prime developers of the OS would never know whether the code (functionality) is changed or remain same.
Programmers can simply open the original source code of any open source and juz write an aspect that weaves through the original code. AOP gives this kind flexibility to the programmers to change / enhance behavior at run time. Added code in the aspect cannot be considered as change in the original source code.
Is this big drawback (is this a drawback ?) going to impact on Open Source Community ?
Any views on this ?
Its not fully true IMO.
The reason is AOP identifies cross cutting concerns, which usually is for debugging, logging, authentication, authorization etc and not used for say to insert some snippet of code. The "advices" used in AOP are specified as "before" or "after" normally. Hence the Open Source Developers are not loosing their ownership or creativity, since the developers use it only for the embedding the above cross cutting concerns.
Your opinion is true, if a programmer uses AOP to weave in and change the functionality of a method or class or variable altogether, which is not the intended purpose of AOP. - That why I dont fully agree with but lightly agree.
Thanks and regards,
So, the point here is, a programmer/ developer can change the behavior of a OS component/ software. AOP is a concept and people have own choice to implement on their own way ! When it is possible to do, most of them out there tend to do that in order to hide the changes/ enhancements they introduced. So the commercial players can forget the licensing worries they have all along ?