Re: MSVC binaries not a GPL violation

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

2011/8/9 John W. Eaton <address@hidden>:
> On  9-Aug-2011, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>
> | I don't know if this FAQ entry was in place back in 2009 but I can't
> | remember this being discussed since:
> |
> |      
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL
>
> My memory may be faulty on this, but as I remember, the issue was not
> about compiling Octave and linking with MSVC, but about distributing
> the MSVC run-time with Octave binaries.  OK, here is the statement
> from the FSF's licensing guru about this issue:
>
>  
> https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2009-May/015921.html

Well, the two URLs above have contradictory information. One says the
runtime is a system library, the other says it isn't. Of course that's
where the whole argument hinges. I think the GPL FAQ of course also
means distribution, because otherwise there is no point in even asking
if linking is ok or not: you can link whatever GPLed software you want
to whatever else as long as you don't distribute it.

I'm CCing the FSF again to ask this point to be clarified again.

- Jordi G. H.