On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Michael Goffioul <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Judd Storrs <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, John W. Eaton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Does the FAQ answer specifically say that you are not allowed to >>> distribute them together? >> >> GPLv2 section 3 does: >> >> "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." >> >> The question is whether being part of the same installer counts as >> "accompanies the executable". GPLv3 may be more lenient. The best I could >> find as equivalent is at the end of section 6: >> >> "A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded >> from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be >> included in conveying the object code work." >> >> It seems to me that the GPLv3's "need not" is much more permissive than the >> GPLv2's ban on co-distribution. > > Just for the record, looking at the answer here > > http://www.ginac.de/pipermail/cln-list/2009-April/000513.html > > this guy won't stop at GiNaC/CLN. And he claims this is still > valid for GPLv3. > > Michael. >
I think it comes down to the fact whether MSVC++ runtime qualifies as a "System Library". See clause 1 of GPL3: The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, Major Component here is Windows. It seems to me the MSVC++ qualifies under (b): it is clearly intended to only enable MSVC++ compiled C++ programs run at Windows, (unless you patch Octave to use MSVC++-specific features). If this is right (and prove me wrong), the next paragraph clearly excludes this library from Corresponding source. I don't think the paragraph containing the "aggregate" definition (Conveying Modified Source Versions) is relevant at all. It seems that GPLv2 is more strict and forbids the distribution, while GPLv3 allows it. If GiNaC uses the standard "or any later version" clause, then I think you can still happily distribute what you do. What needs to be excluded from your distribution is GPL2-only software. -- RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek computing expert & GNU Octave developer Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU) Prague, Czech Republic url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
