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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
