On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Kustaa Nyholm <kustaa.nyh...@planmeca.com> wrote: > > From GPL2: >> "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. " >> >> I think the last sentence forbids it. But maybe it depends whether >> *that component* refers back to *anything* or *major components*. >> > I think that this allows it! > > See: > > "<snip> need not include anything that is normally distributed in <snip> > binary form <snip> with the <snip> compiler unless that [compiler] itself > accompanies the executable" >
I don't think it's that clear. Even though "compiler" is listed explicitly in the parentheses, the wording is clearly "major components of the operating system" and I don't think VC++ is a component of Windows. Not that the GPLv3 wording is different. OK, the MSVC++ compiled binaries don't actually run on plain Windows, they need Windows + the MSVC++ runtime, so that can be considered as a platform per se, which would then qualify, but OTOH it's never called an "operating system" ... yes, the wording is *very* unclear. > I think it is very un-ambiguous that "that component" refers to "major > component" as the previous sentence defines it. The previous sentence talks about major components of operating system (note the plural) and it is not at all clear what exactly, "that component" refers to. "any such component" would be probably better. Still, we can stick to the assumption that it's the MSVC++. > To me *this* paragraph cannot be used to justify not allowing distributing > GPLv2 code pre-linked with VC++ std libraries. It depends on whether you consider the MSVC++ runtime library as a (separate) major component, which is not clear. If you do, then you can't distribute it *along with* the binaries, as clearly stated by the last sentence. > It seems to me that one of the reason to add language related to > this paragraph into GPLv3 was to clarify this. From that I conclude > that the the clarified paragraph in v3 also clarifies the intention > of the v2 in this respect. Maybe. From my point of view, it also lessens the restrictions. > An other interesting discussion topic would be who gets to decide on > the licensing disputes. As I understand it the license is an agreement > between the original copyright holder and the users and as such is > a binding agreement of which a court decision is ultimately needed > if the dispute cannot be amicably resolved between the parties. Yes. -- 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 Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
