Re: README.woe32, GPL, and the Win32 binaries

[Bruno Haible]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I just did a search on the closest Windows XP box, which doesn't have
> MSVC 7 (or any other compiler, for that matter), and found msvcr70.dll
> on it.  It apparently came with Office, which _is_ installed on that
> machine.  Windows machines without Office are quite rare these days.

So you assume that Office is "one of the major components of the
operating system". But you have to pay extra for Office after you have
bought the OS!

> Sorry, I cannot parse this paragraph.  If I distribute the
> MSVC-compiled binary without the offending DLL, how exactly did I
> violate the GPL?

Because you don't distribute source code of the DLL. Section 3 of the GPL.

> > UWIN is not "normally distributed with the OS"
>
> UWIN isn't, but it looks like msvcr70.dll comes very close to be just
> that.

The only difference I can see between UWIN and msvcr70.dll that I can
see is that the latter is from the same vendor as the operating system
itself. But the GPL doesn't care about who is the vendor. It asks
for the source to be available.

> According to your logic, if Windows 95 doesn't have msvcrt.dll, one
> cannot distribute binaries that need it, since otherwise the
> distributor will violate the GPL if the binary is used on Windows 95.

If you advertise that the binary works on Windows95, and thus you push
people towards buying msvcrt.dll, then yes you violate the GPL.
Fortunately, this is not what happens: If Windows95 doesn't have the
DLL, people will advertise something like "Requires Windows98 or newer".

> > MSVC is not a part of Windows; you have to pay extra for it.
>
> Let me remind you that the need to pay a fee has nothing to do with
> the issue of whether software is free or not.

The issue is not whether MSVC is free software or not. It certainly isn't.
The issue is whether you can consider it one of the "major components of
the operating system".

Bruno