>> 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.
In my opinion it should definitely be considered as a system component and I see no problem here. >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. Indeed. > >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 [email protected] >and get a definitive opinion. I am very much in favor of getting an opinion from [email protected], who's going to do it? This sort of zelotism (not allowing linking to VC++ std libraries) harms the open source community by making Free software harder to use and less popular and allowing it takes nothing away from anyone, if the source distribution otherwise is as per GPL. br Kusti ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
