Re: [CLN-list] msvc support patch
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
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org> wrote:
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.
(Just for the record, I didn't find back this verbiage in GPLv3). Grand. I'll strip symbolic package from future octave binary releases. Michael.
Michael Goffioul wrote:
(Just for the record, I didn't find back this verbiage in GPLv3).
The relevant paragraph in GPLv3 is the one that talks about "aggregate".
Grand. I'll strip symbolic package from future octave binary releases.
Oh, it's not only about CLN/GiNAC. The octave binary for Windows also contains a libreadline binary, which is also under GPL. I have written to licensing at fsf dot org, asking them about the apparent contradiction between these clauses of the GPL and their FAQ. I'll let you know about the outcome. Bruno
Hello Michael, Regarding whether it is permitted to distribute GPLed software (such as CLN or libreadline) in the same installer with Microsoft runtime libraries: On 2009-04-21 I wrote:
I have written to licensing at fsf dot org, asking them about the apparent contradiction between these clauses of the GPL and their FAQ. I'll let you know about the outcome.
Brett Smith's answer is: ============================================================================
My argumentation is as follows:
- The libraries msvcr80.dll etc. are not part of a plain Windows installation.
(That's precisely the reason why the people distributing said installers added them.)
While it is true that these libraries aren't installed with Windows by default, they accompany the compiler used for these programs, so in general it should at least be possible for them to qualify as system libraries under both GPLv2 and v3. However, I think you're right that specific license terms in both versions of the GPL preclude people from going so far as to include these libraries as part of the object code for GPLed programs. Best regards, -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation ============================================================================
Windows binaries for Octave (based on VC++) has been abandoned anyway. Thanks, Michael. On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org> wrote:
Hello Michael,
Regarding whether it is permitted to distribute GPLed software (such as CLN or libreadline) in the same installer with Microsoft runtime libraries:
On 2009-04-21 I wrote:
I have written to licensing at fsf dot org, asking them about the apparent contradiction between these clauses of the GPL and their FAQ. I'll let you know about the outcome.
Brett Smith's answer is:
============================================================================
My argumentation is as follows:
- The libraries msvcr80.dll etc. are not part of a plain Windows installation.
(That's precisely the reason why the people distributing said installers added them.)
While it is true that these libraries aren't installed with Windows by default, they accompany the compiler used for these programs, so in general it should at least be possible for them to qualify as system libraries under both GPLv2 and v3. However, I think you're right that specific license terms in both versions of the GPL preclude people from going so far as to include these libraries as part of the object code for GPLed programs.
Best regards,
-- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation ============================================================================
participants (2)
-
Bruno Haible
-
Michael Goffioul