On 03/25/2009 06:48 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I've found a package that contains a a library intended to be shimmed > into the system with LD_PRELOAD. The library itself is under the CPL > license. Are there any troubling issues surrounding dynamic linking of a > CPL-licensed library in this manner? > > My take on this is that we couldn't link CPL code with, say, GPL code > together and distribute the resulting binary, but when the end user > performs that linking by setting LD_PRELOAD and running a binary, they > aren't distributing the result so there's no license violation. It's > all pretty much beyond me, though. Any chance I can see the package in question?