Re: [OctDev] No symbolic package in future (Windows/VC++) releases

[John W. Eaton]

On 20-Apr-2009, Shai Ayal wrote:

| I think the problem is distributing the VC++ runtime libs, which are
| microsoft's equivalent of glibc, and which are certainly non-gpl

Can they reasonably be considered a system component that is part of
the OS?  If so, then I don't see a problem unless the terms of the
VC++ license prohibits redistribution.  If not, then it would seem to
me that any distribution of binaries that are linked with the VC++
libraries would violate the GPL.  In that case, we should only be
distributing MinGW binaries.  In any case, why did this come up in the
context of CLN and GiNaC?  If the problem is with the VC++ license,
then I don't see that the problem is unique to CLN and GiNaC.

jwe