mailRe: [Wesnoth-dev] wesnoth and python

Others Months | Index by Date | Thread Index
>>   [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]



Posted by Jens Seidel on April 26, 2007 - 13:12:
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 

Probably, but I'm not sure.

2. Can MSVC-compiled programs which require that DLL still be considered 

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 ( 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

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

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.


Related Messages

Powered by MHonArc, Updated Thu Apr 26 13:40:07 2007