Re: Windows?

[John W. Eaton]

On 13-May-2009, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

| If it's the case, nothing prevents a GPL from being dynamically (i.e. at
| runtime) linked.

I believe that the FSF has long claimed that the method of linking is
irrelevant.  The GPL doesn't somehow not apply if you use dynamic
linking. 

| Look at all the proprietary SW running under Linux -
| Oracle, SYNOPSYS, Cadence, etc.

The license for the GNU C library is LGPL.  The license for the GNU
C++ runtime library (libstdc++) is GPLv3 plus a special exception.  So
I think you are confusing some issues here.
n
| 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.

Static vs. dynamic linking is not the issue.  Distributing in the same
tarball is not the issue either.

| 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.

See above, and also read the clause in the GPL about "aggregation"
(the end of section 5 of GPLv3).

| 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.

As I think I've already mentioned, I've asked the FSF about this
issue:

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

| I'm glad 'inkscape' developers were smart enough to stick to "don't ask,
| don't tell" policy.

I'm not sure that is a wise 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "interpret motivation ... dynamically",
or how it is that we are changing the rules during the game.  But
instead of directing your anger at us, maybe you should direct it at
the idiotic policies of Microsoft?

| People want convenience,

If choose convenience over freedom, then it seems likely to me that
you will quickly lose your freedom.

| That can lead and they also want _not_ to be harassed; the
| answers JWE got from GNU licensing engineer looks like effective
| harassment.

I don't see it that way.

In any case, we have a free alternative.  It's called MinGW.  I don't
understand what the problem is with simply using that.  If there are
problems with MinGW, then I suggest that people help to improve MinGW
rather than simply complaining or giving up on freedom.  If you don't
understand this, then I don't see why you are bothering with free
software at all, unless it is just that you want something for nothing.

jwe