Signing binaries of open-source projects
===

I tried to use [ServiceStack][1] in my current project but found the binaries released were not strong named so i couldn't use it out of the box. When asking on GitHub "why" I got the following answer:

> [it's virally toxic and hinders binding, upgrading, development,
> deployment, etc.][2]

mythz was very laconic so I didn't want to bother him more and asking here. I use a lot of open-source .NET projects like AutoMapper, NUnit, Moq, log4net, Ninject, etc. and their releases are all strong named. Found [similar question][3] here, on SO, but it doesn't help me. Is it normal practice in OSS? Why not release both signed and unsigned binaries?


  [1]: http://www.servicestack.net/
  [2]: https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/issues/195
  [3]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/396143/net-opensource-projects-and-strong-named-assemblies