If I understand correctly, the MSVC library in question is not
static, but
a DLL.
If it's the case, nothing prevents a GPL from being dynamically
(i.e. at
runtime) linked. Look at all the proprietary SW running under Linux -
Oracle, SYNOPSYS, Cadence, etc.
Again, if I understand correctly, the question was about
distributing in
the same tarball 'octave' and MSVC DLL which are _not_ statically
linked
to each other.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous because there are whole DVD-
size
media (SUSE, Mandriva) distributing free and non-free programs and
libraries/programs in the same .iso file; the free and non-freeitems
are
also not statically linked.
So, the counter-example of SUSE/Mandriva, as well as already mentioned
'inkscape', sparked my genuine interest in the issue of freedom in the
light of consistent shooting itself in the foot.
Since it is possible/allowed to distribute instruction on how to get
MSVC
DLLs, it is also possible to write code which implements these
instructions.
And someone will probably do it, spending his/her energy on nothing
instead
of spending it to do really useful things. This an example of shooting
itself in the foot - spending time to please ideologists instead of
spending it on something useful.
I'm glad 'inkscape' developers were smart enough to stick to "don't
ask,
don't tell" policy.
I am really disturbed by the fact GNU folks dare to interpret
motivation
of SW developers dynamically/on the fly, essentially (IMO) changing
the
rules during the game.
People want convenience, and they also want _not_ to be harassed; the
answers JWE got from GNU licensing engineer looks like effective
harassment.
Freedom is needed to avoid harassment, not to encourage it.
Regards,
Sergei.