Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

[mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård)]

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:

>> > However, it does now seem like a hole in the copyleft.  While possible
>> > in principle, I won't stay awake at nights worrying about it.  As
>> > Henning said, it is really just an oversight.  The intent is clear,
>> > which may sway a court more than the explicit wording.
>> 
>> The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
>> doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
>> license to trump each other?
>
> The hole is there, but exploiting it is hard.  People don't normally
> modify machine code.

The dynamic linker modifies machine code.  I'll leave resolving
whether that has any implications to copyright/license issues to
someone else.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se