On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Marco Costalba wrote:
> >
> > > Packaged together with qgit.exe there are the necessary Micorsoft
> > > Visual C dll's. Is this a problem for someone?
>
> My two cents below; I hope you don't mind my interference.
Not at all.
> > I'd actually be more concerned about whether you can (or should) distribute
> > GPL code compiled with a proprietary compiler;
>
> This is the exact same situation as with other proprietary platforms (Solaris,
> HPUx, etc). You should not make a difference for Windows IMHO. Besides, many
> open source projects have no problem at all with MSVC.
The difference I see is that the project's build system can use the system
toolchain without caring whether it's a proprietary one or an open source
one. That is, you can call $CC or $LD based on the interface standard, and
it doesn't fundamentally matter whether you've got a proprietary compiler
or not (of course, you'll get a different result, but that's true of
different compiler versions anyway, and build timestamps and machine and
user name will be different, etc). MSVC's build system interface is
particular to itself.
> > people who get the binaries and the source still couldn't edit the source
> > and generate a corresponding binary, because they don't necessarily have the
> > build environment you used.
>
> This particular tool is free (as in beer) to download and use.
It probably actually falls under the "system software" exception, in that
case (when distributing source, you have to include everything needed to
build the source, except for normal system software, which you can assume
the recipient has).
In any case, not an actual problem; it's just that distributing
side-by-side (the original question) is even more clearly not a problem,
in my opinion.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
