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

[Shai Ayal]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:23 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 20-Apr-2009, Michael Goffioul wrote:
>
> | On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
> | <address@hidden> wrote:
> | > Out of curiosity, would be interesting to understand exactly why this is
> | > allegedly violation of GPLv2?
> |
> | This paragraph from GPLv2
> |
> | ==
> | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> | making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
> | code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> | associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> | control compilation and installation of the executable.  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.
> | ==
>
> | In other words, you can link against VC++ runtime libs, but you can't
> | include them into an installer for user convenience.
>
> I can't see how the quoted clause implies this restriction.
>
> My understanding is that the quoted clause from the GPL is intended to
> allow you to link with "system components" which might be distributed
> under GPL-incompatible terms and for which there is no corresponding
> source code.  CLN and GiNaC are not system components that are
> normally distributed with the major components of any operating
> system, so the exception granted by this clause does not apply, so to
> link GiNaC and CLN with Octave, it must be possible to distribute all
> of the parts under terms that are compatible with the GPL.
>
> Who complained about your method of binary distribution, and why?  The
> GPL specifically allows binary distributions provided that you make
> the corresponding source code available under the terms of the GPL.
>
> I don't see how it would be a violation of the GPL if you
>
>  link Octave with a library that is distributed under GPL compatible
>  terms (GiNaC, CLN, and Octave are all GPL)
>
>  distribute the binary version of the library in some kind of
>  installer/package management system
>
>  make the source for everything available along with the binary
>  distribution or otherwise make the sources available in another way
>  as required by the GPL
>
> If you are providing sources for the parts you distribute, then I
> don't see the problem.

I think the problem is distributing the VC++ runtime libs, which are
microsoft's equivalent of glibc, and which are certainly non-gpl

Shai