On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:57:51AM +0200, Elias Pschernig wrote:
Yes, might very well technically be against the GPL, but then, every program compiled with MSVC would be against the GPL (since they all
Right! That's why nobody uses such compilers for Open Source stuff ...
need that DLL.. at least when compiled in the way the python DLL is compiled by Python's Windows devs). So two problems: 1. Does Microsoft allow re-distribution of the DLL for someone not owning MSVC?
Probably, but I'm not sure.
2. Can MSVC-compiled programs which require that DLL still be considered GPL?
No! I'm not 100% sure but at least to 99.5%. That's why there exists also the LGPL which allows this. Debian has a statement (http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19981008) which seems to match this case and explains the situation. It concludes with: "you may not distribute the Program at all."
To me personally, it still seems just a technicality - if e.g. MSVC would be able to embed that .dll inside the .exe, there would be no problem,
Wrong! A user of a GPL'ed program has the right to access the complete source code of the binary also for binary stuff included by the compiler.
but because it comes with a .dll required to run the programs it outputs, it gets a problem. Actually, I wonder now why wesnoth runs without that .dll (it's also compiled with MSVC..) - just the python devs using stupid settings?
Is it really not possible to compile Python the old style way by doing ./configure; make; make install (or do they use a different build system)? I know for sure that autotools work in Windows even if I cannot test it since I do not own such a system since Win3.1 and the license is just not appropriate for a normal user such as me. Jens