Re: MSVC runtime library license problem

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 23-Jan-2007, David Bateman wrote:
>
> | I think that is too strict an interpretation.. Why do OS libraries get
> | special treatment?
>
> Because of the following statement in section 3 of the GPL:
>
>   The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
>   making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
>   code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
>   associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
>   control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
>   special exception, the source code distributed need not include
>   anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
>   form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
>   operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
>   itself accompanies the executable.
>
> However, I was forgetting the very last part.  So it seems it would be
> OK to distribute a binary copy of Octave linked with the MSVC runtime
> libraries IF you can consider them a component of the OS AND IF you
> are allowed by the terms of their license to bundle and distribute
> them with your application.
>   
Hey, that actually looks like we can distribute then as compiler support
libraries are specifically mentioned.. However as you say we must be
allowed to distribute the libraries of MSVC, and perhaps the express
license doesn't allow this (Michael?). If Express MSVC doesn't allow it
then a commercial MSVC license must allow it, and then by the clause
above we are GPL compliant for a MSVC binary release...

> | Why can I link a GPL program to a closed source OS
> | library, but not to a closed source compiler support library?
>
> As I understand it, the OS exception was a pragmatic choice because at
> the time the GPL was written, most (all?) systems that GPL software
> ran on were non-free, with non-free compilers and support libraries.
>
> In any case, this  clause is a bit vague because of what might be
> considered as part of the OS.
>   
Makes sense..

> | Ok, so if the key is distribution in the above can we please have an
> | exception for linking against compiler support libraries. I know in the
> | past you've state no change to the GPL due to the effort needed to find
> | all the authors and ask permission. However, it seems to me that this
> | exemption only affects compiled code, so that must limit the number of
> | people to contact significantly.
>
> I don't see how that changes anything.  It would still be a change in
> the terms of the license.
>   
But a change that only affected the compiled code, as so had no affect
on the other contributed code. Ok, in the strict sense any license
change needs approval...

Regards
David


-- 
David Bateman                                address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE                  +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary