Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
