RE: Re: MSVC runtime library license problem

[John W. Eaton]

On 23-Jan-2007, address@hidden wrote:

| So, if I understand this correctly, the problem is a matter of distributing
| binary packages. You can't include MS runtime libs in a binary package of
| (L)GPL code. But I guess, nothing prevents you from distributing those libs
| as a separate package.

No, it would mean that you can't distribute binaries that are linked
with these libraries.  It doesn't matter if you distribute the parts
separately, or if you just tell the user where to get the non-free
parts and then expect them to do the final link.  Either way is just
an attempt to avoid the terms of the GPL, so I don't think it is
valid.

There is nothing preventing you from telling others how to use MSVC to
compile Octave for themselves.

So I think that unless the terms of the runtime library change, we
will only be able to distribute binaries of Octave for Windows that
are compiled with MinGW or that are built for Cygwin.  To satisfy the
GPL, the MSVC runtime libraries would need to either be released under
terms that are compatible with the GPL or made part of the OS.  A free
of charge download of software that is distributed under terms that
are not compatible with the GPL is not sufficient.

Sorry, I should have realized that there was a problem when I tried to
run the binary on a Windows system and there were missing libraries.

jwe