[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

[Thorsten Glaser]

Florian Weimer dixit:

>for shipping corresponding source code that was actually compiled, and
>not just upstream tarballs plus downstream patches.

upstream tarballs plus downstream patches is preferred form of
modification, though

>It's not unreasonable to do this for link-time optimization purposes.

but precisely that would not match the requirements, I’d
rather embed a tarball


Cem Karan dixit:

>That said, I for one would find it *highly* amusing if gcc/clang added
>a switch to embed the complete project

but gcc/clang can’t know the complete corresponding source,
which adds build systems… and IMHO also e.g. the debian/
subdirectory of packaging as separate(!) entity

goodnight,
//mirabilos
-- 
[...] if maybe ext3fs wasn't a better pick, or jfs, or maybe reiserfs, oh but
what about xfs, and if only i had waited until reiser4 was ready... in the be-
ginning, there was ffs, and in the middle, there was ffs, and at the end, there
was still ffs, and the sys admins knew it was good. :)  -- Ted Unangst über *fs