Re: [RFC] Distributing Windows binary package compiled with non gpl code

From: Abdelrazak Younes <younes.a@free.fr>
Date: Dec 27, 2007, 23:10 UTC
Message-ID: <fl1bcn$k2h$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.00.0712271647130.13593@iabervon.org>

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.

Show 7 quoted lines

> 
> It depends on how they're packaged together. If it's possible to unpack 
> them (into a bunch of separate files, where each is either all GPL or no 
> GPL), then this is "mere aggregation" and perfectly fine (assuming you're 
> allowed to distribute the Visual C dlls, of course). IIRC, bundled 
> libraries for Windows programs are stored on the user's disk as separate 
> files anyway, so this is automatically okay.

Yes, MSVC dlls are redistributable.

> 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.

> 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.

> On the other hand, nothing you could do differently 
> would be any better for anyone with the right to complain, so it shouldn't 
> be an issue in practice. (And a user of qgit for Windows is more likely 
> than usual to have MSVC anyway)

Well said :-)

Abdel.