Re: FatELF & patents

[Rayson Ho <raysonlogin@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Anton D. Kachalov <mouse@mayc.ru> wrote:
> Hmm... looks like patents talks about objects that stored in one file with
> arch-independent header.

Actually, the example in the PDF is an executable.


> My implementation (that is differ to Ryan's) do not use any headers except
> ELF header and just 3 bytes in it to store next location. So, it's patent
> clear.

However, there are 20 claims in the patent. Just using a different way
to store the architecture independent header might not be enough.


>  This is very common way to store different arch binaries...

The patent mentions only one prior art:

"One prior art attempt to provide a method for providing a single
application for a variety of architectures and formats is the ANDF
system, developed by OSF. This is an architecture neutral binary
format. A disadvantage of this scheme is that it requires conversion
to the native architecture at installation time."

I don't think there is anything similar to Apple's fat binary or
universal binary -- a single executable that can be executed on
different processor families.

The closest thing I can think of is the mixed of 32-bit / 64-bit
object files in a single archive on AIX.


> PS. Patents is evil.

Hence the heads up.

And yes, thanks but no thanks, I won't need an iPhone!!

Rayson



>
> Rgds,
> Anton
>