Re: Windows?

[Sergei Steshenko]

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, John Swensen <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: John Swensen <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Windows?
> To: "Sergei Steshenko" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "Francesco Potorti`" <address@hidden>, "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden>, 
> "dmelliott" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 8:35 AM
> 


> 
> I don't always agree with GNU licensing, but the fact is
> that when GPL is applied to a bit a source code, the use of
> said source code implies you have accepted the
> license.  At this point (and note IANAL), in some sense
> the user of the source code has made a legally binding
> agreement.  There are plenty of court cases where the
> use of GPL source code and the defacto agreement entered
> into upon use of the source code has been upheld.
> 
> So there are two issues here: 1) people interpret the word
> freedom in different manners and 2) the people who
> volunteered their time and code to a GPL project did so
> under the assumption that users of their code would follow
> the legally binding GPL requirements.  Had they
> intended something else, they would have used a different
> license (e.g. BSD, Apache, etc.).  So rest assured that
> those who "look the other way" and violate either in spirit
> or in a legal sense the GPL are violating a choice made by
> the developer/contributor from which the code originated.
> 
> John Swensen
>

So, where is the GPL violation if 'octave'/'inkscape' are _not_ statically
linked with MSVC libraries ?

Thanks,
  Sergei.