Michael Goffioul wrote:
> This link will hopefully clarify this.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL
This FAQ does not make the distinction between whether the installer
contains the run-time libraries or not. Based on the verbiage in the GPL
(explained in the other mail) I therefore think that this FAQ assumes
that the installer does not contain the run-time libraries.
> there's no point in discussing the rest.
There is, because you or the Octave people have other ways to build
an installer that fulfils the letter of the GPL:
- Build with an older version of MSVC++, whose runtime libraries
are contained in the minimum version of Windows that your
package supports, or
- Distribute the the MSVC++ runtime libraries in a separate installer
(then it's mere "aggregation" in the terms of the GPL), or
- Arrange for the installer to pop up a browser window to the
Microsoft VC++ redistributables download page.
The last two options are still not following the spirit of the GPL
(because they encourage the installation of closed-source libraries),
but legally not a GPL violation.
In the second option, there's also the Microsoft license that you have
to look at. I find it funny that the license in the "Microsoft
Visual C++ 2008 Redistributables" (vcredist_x86.exe) expressly
forbids redistributing its contents.
Bruno