Re: [OctDev] [gnu.org #432927] Can a Windows installer include both VC++ libs and GPLed libs?

[Kustaa Nyholm]

Hi Brett,

thanks for the answer. I'm not really a party to this issue but very 
interested anyway.

Brett Smith wrote:

> However, both versions of the GNU GPL have language which prevent this
> exemption from applying to libraries that are actually distributed in
> tandem with the GPLed software. 
Could you pin point the "language" here so that we (GPL users) would
understand better what it is that this is based on.



> 
> 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."  
Seems like a bad way of trying to achieve this goal. Would it not have
been better to specify that the Free software cannot be changed so
that it can only be used with proprietary libraries for which no
Free alternatives are available?

Like in this instance, the GPL seems to work against it's stated goals.
 
> To the best of my knowledge, this exact situation is the only one that
> presents problems for distributors.  
And problems for users, very much for the users!

> As far as I'm aware, on every other
> major operating system in use today, all the libraries that would
> qualify as System Libraries come with the operating system, or are at
> least part of the standard install.  The runtime libraries for
> Microsoft's compilers are the only exception.
It maybe the 'only' exception but  Windows is 95% or something of all computer 
users, thinking otherwise is leaving in fantasy world, no matter how much I 
dislike many of the business practices and things that M$ stands for.

Also your sentence above seems to imply that actually runtime libraries
for Microsoft's compilers would be System Libraries if they were
distributed with the OS or were part of the standard install?

Not a very coherent argument, especially as what we are talking about
here is not some malicious attempt to hijack Free software for
proprietary causes but for making life for Free software users 
much easier and thus the use of Free software more wide spread.


>> 
> No.  Distributing the Octave binaries and the runtime libraries on the
> same media would be problematic, regardless of the specific medium used.
That is a very problematic sentence. What if the medium is a the net?
Distributing on the same server is forbidden? On the same (Inter)net?

> 
> 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.
Yeah, it *is* too bad. Very, very few Windows users (and remember
that is 95% of the potential user base) are able to do this and even if
they are, they are not willing to do this. Too bad for GPLed software,
good for proprietary software. Personally, being a mainly Mac OS X user,
I have even a lower threshold. If I cannot double click on a disk image
on webpage and run the software *without installing* it at all, there needs
to be a very, very, very good reason for me to even try any software.


> 
> If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me; I'll be
> on the lookout for those, and try to respond as quickly as possible.
I think we all appreciate your efforts.

Like I declared I have no real vested interest in octave (except a happy
user on Mac OS X) but out of curiosity I talked to a lawyer about this
and so for the record her opinion was that FSF is not really party the
license agreement between those who release software under GPL and 
those who use the software. So it is pretty much up those to put
the spin on the license in court if it comes to that, not FSF. 

As an ever increasing number of people contribute to a GPL licensed piece of 
software, releasing their creative work under *their* assumption of what the 
GPL means on any given date it is a horrible mess! Think of some 
developer testifying that 'I released my contribution under the assumption
that <some assumption>... and now I'm detracting that contribution 
because it seems that GPL means <something else>, and I demand that
all those users that are using the software stop using it'.

cheers Kusti