[License-discuss] Storing source artifacts in ELF files (was: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict)

[Bruce Perens]

Rather than do this, why not just make an existing archive format
executable? Just sticking #! and the interpreter name at the front should
be sufficient. If you execute it, it extracts and runs a native executable
for your architecture, or one for any interpreter such as the JVM. That can
be the first file. Then the rest of the files are the source.

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 11:41 Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via
License-discuss <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> Thorsten Glaser wrote on Monday, October 7, 2019 11:22 AM:
> > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss dixit:
> >
> > >If it were to be done seriously, then a great deal more thought would
> > >need to go into it. In one of the messages I sent out (see
> >
> > What I’m doing at $dayjob (which is involved in Java™ mostly) is to, at
> build time, do…
> > <<SNIP>>
>
> Sounds like we have a volunteer to lead this effort! ;-)
>
> OK, all joking aside, I'm going to change the subject line, so others can
> filter this conversation out, as it is definitely not about "Discussion:
> AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict", and it is unkind to anyone using
> a search engine in the future to try to find this thread from the subject.
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20191007/1ac5d48d/attachment.html>