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

[Howard Chu]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Cem F. Karan:
> 
>> The ELF idea sounds interesting, but what about other binary
>> containers, e.g. mach-o?
> 
> I don't know anything about mach-o, sorry.  Well, I know that some of
> the files share their magic number with Java class files, but that's
> it.
> 
>> That said, I for one would find it *highly* amusing if gcc/clang added
>> a switch to embed the complete project into the binary (or even a git
>> bundle, so you can do a pull from an executable).

It's been an amusing discussion, but embedding source code into binaries has
absolutely nothing to do with the email subject: AGPL, whose sticking point is
when software is used across a network. I.e., the end user never gets their
hands on any binaries, they only interact with a networked service.

-- 
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/