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

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> 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
>
>   
This case definitely isn't unique to CLN/GINAC, though my personal 
opinion is that the VC++ libraries are part of the compilation process 
and if a static build was used there wouldn't be any question so I don't 
see why the case is different with the libraries distributed with the 
installer.

In any case from what I understood from this thread the CLN author won't 
accept any of our muses as evidence one way or the other and his 
position puts in doubt the use of VC++ for any binary GPL distribution, 
CLN, Octave or otherwise, so we should bump this to licensing at fsf.org 
and get a definitive opinion.

Cheers
David

-- 
David Bateman                                dbateman at dbateman.org
35 rue Gambetta                              +33 1 46 04 02 18 (Home)
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE            +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)