Francois Gouget wrote: > Uwe Bonnes wrote: > [...] >> Missing MFC42 and other redistributable DLLs is a showstopper for >> winelib >> and running windows code on non i386 archtecture... > > Well, not quite. If you're going to use Winelib it means that you have > the source of the application. And if it is using the MFC it should > mean that you have a Visual Studio license, and thus the MFC sources > (though maybe that's only in the 'Pro' edition or some such). So then > you should be able to recompile the MFC using Winelib. That's exactly > what I did five years or so ago. I had to trim quite a few things but > got something that was somewhat usable. I did not pursue it further > though. > > Modern day MFC probably changed a bit (did it really change much?), > but then Winelib should be much better too. The real issue is the > license. In the Visual Studio 6 era, it seemed like it was legal to > redistribute the MFC dll with your non-trivial application, with no > mention of the platform. This might have changed since, and in any > case that's something you'd want to check with a lawyer. > >
In Visual Studio 6 it was allowed. In Visual C++ .net, it says not only "only in object code form" and together with a product that "adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables", but also: "Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows platforms". I believe this is a direct response to Wine being rather useful. Also, end users may not distribute the Redistributable further. (Of course, programs developed with Visual C++ .net may still be distributed, but this license covers Microsofts copyrights on their redistributables.) regards, Jakob
