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

[John W. Eaton]

On 20-Apr-2009, Judd Storrs wrote:

| On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
| 
| > It seems there is already a FAQ about this issue:
| >
| >  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL
| >
| > so I still don't understand what the problem is.
| 
| 
| The FAQ entry says you can dynamically link with system libraries. More
| specifically, it doesn't say you can distribute system libraries together as
| a part of a GPL program.

Does the FAQ answer specifically say that you are not allowed to
distribute them together?  But anyway, as Michael pointed out, the
system component exception clause in the GPLv2:

  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.

does seem to say that the source code is needed if the component
accompanies the executable.  So I guess you can't distribute them
together.  But you can link with the libraries and just tell the user
to make sure they are installed, or even help them install it.

A more important question is whether redistribution of the libraries
is allowed by Microsoft.  The blanket statement on the MS web site is

  NOTICE SPECIFIC TO SOFTWARE AVAILABLE ON THIS WEB SITE.

  Any software that is made available to download from the Services
  ("Software") is the copyrighted work of Microsoft and/or its
  suppliers. Use of the Software is governed by the terms of the end
  user license agreement, if any, which accompanies or is included
  with the Software ("License Agreement"). An end user will be unable
  to install any Software that is accompanied by or includes a License
  Agreement, unless he or she first agrees to the License Agreement
  terms.

  The Software is made available for download solely for use by end
  users according to the License Agreement. Any reproduction or
  redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License
  Agreement is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe
  civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the
  maximum extent possible.

  WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE
  SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR
  REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, UNLESS SUCH REPRODUCTION OR
  REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THE LICENSE AGREEMENT
  ACCOMPANYING SUCH SOFTWARE.

So does the license agreement that accompanies the VC++ libraries
specifically allow redistribution?

FWIW, I would prefer it if the primary Octave binaries for Windows
were built with MinGW.  That way we wouldn't have these problems.  But
if you (Michael) want to distribute binaries built with VC++, then
wouldn't it be better to stop distributing the VC++ libraries (have
the user install them separately, if needed) instead of eliminating
the GiNaC/CLN libraries from your installer?

jwe