Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?
"Jamin W. Collins" <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> writes:
> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:16:50PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
>> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:
>>
>> > Burnes, James wrote:
>> >
>> >> 3. Is it that you simply want an efficient mechanism for cataloging
>> >> efforts of the major contributors to a project? If that's the case why
>> >> don't we just come up with some sort of credits standard to be macro
>> >> embedded in the binaries? That way anyone could view the credits by
>> >> running a 'credits' shell command against the binary/library/kernel etc.
>> >> Obviously the macros would be viewable in source.
>> > Nice idea. I like it. It's also a good way to put the copyright notices
>> > *into* the binaries, rather than merely next to them. How about a standard
>> > ELF section for credits? :-)
>>
>> I like the idea as well. FWIW, as an experimental implementation
>> attempt, I have just modified my own little program (jpegpixi, of which
>> I'm the upstream author; I'm not a DD) to put the copyright and license
>> information (i.e. the text which is normally output in reaction to the
>> --version command line option) in a separate ELF section ".license".
>> The objcopy command can be used to dump and/or extract the contents of
>> this section.
>
> How much did this addition increase the size of the final binary?
It is not really an addition, because the text was there before, just
not in a separate section. The --version command line option still
displays the same text, although it is now in a separate section. The
main benefit of the current experimental implementation is that a shell
script (e.g. a one line objcopy wrapper) could also access the text
(given only the binary file).
To answer your question, the new section increases the binary file size
by 48 bytes, which is probably due to the additional ELF header.
> Hypothetically, would you object to this information being stripped if
> your binary were used on an embedded or low space device?
No, I wouldn't. Frankly, I don't see how I could without introducing
additional restrictions to the GPL. The result of stripping the section
is no different from removing the text from the source and recompiling.
Technically, if stripping the section is an option, IMHO the program
should be changed to react sensibly if it is invoked with the --version
command line option and the section is absent.
Martin
PS: If people are interested in exploring this further, should the
discussion be moved to a technical list (e.g. -devel)?
Reply to: