From: Abdelrazak Younes Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:10:08 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC] Distributing Windows binary package compiled with non gpl code Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 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. > > 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.