Re: Windows?

[John W. Eaton]

On 10-May-2009, Qianqian Fang wrote:

| why not dynamically download a VC redistribution package from
| http://support.microsoft.com/kb/259403 and install it as an dependent
| of octave? in this case, no need to ship the dlls in the package.

In the FSF response to our question about this issue, Brett Smith
wrote:

  The reason the GPL works this way is because we need to keep the
  System Library exception very narrow.  If we make it too easy for
  libraries to qualify as System Libraries, it will become feasible
  for companies to change free software and keep the changes
  proprietary by putting them in a "System Library."  The language
  that prevents System Libraries from being distributed alongside the
  software helps prevent this sort of abuse.

So the intent of the distribution restriction seems clear to me.
We don't want people to be able to claim that their library is a
"system library" when it is not really part of the OS.  But then he
also went on to say

  [...]  Distributing the Octave binaries and the runtime libraries on
  the same media would be problematic, regardless of the specific
  medium used.

  I think the Windows binary distribution should simply provide users
  with instructions to obtain the libraries from Microsoft's site.  I
  realize that's inconvenient, but hopefully it's not too bad, and I
  think it's a worthwhile change to avoid any GPL trouble.

However, this response surprises me, because it seems to provide a way to
sidestep the distribution restriction.  Instead of distributing the
"System Library" along with the software, just distribute instructions
for how to install it.  So I think maybe I've misunderstood the
response, and I've asked for further clarification.

Here are links to the full texts of the original response from Brett
and my request for clarification:

  https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2009-May/012132.html
  https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2009-May/012159.html

jwe