Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
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
Reply to: