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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA)]

On Sep 24, 2019, at 10:23 PM, Howard Chu <hyc at openldap.org> wrote:
> 
> All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> 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.           Caution-http://www.symas.com
>  Director, Highland Sun     Caution-http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
>  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  Caution-http://www.openldap.org/project/

You’re right, I apologize, I let my engineering fascination get the best of me. GitHub would probably be a better place for this discussion.

Thanks,
Cem Karan 

—-
Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authoritative state of law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government.