From: Peter F. <pet...@gm...> - 2008-05-18 10:25:22
|
Earnie Boyd schrieb: > Quoting Charles Wilson <cwi...@us...>: > >> Doug Schaefer wrote: >>> Keith Marshall wrote: >>>> The GPL requires you to distribute full source, to allow an end user to >>>> rebuild your application from scratch. If part of that source resides >>>> in headers which you do not have the right to redistribute, how can you >>>> possibly comply with the GPL, without infringing the EULA of those >>>> headers? >>> Actually with that argument, GPL would be restrict you from building >>> against any proprietary C run-time including Solaris, AIX, etc. So I'm >>> not sure this is actually restricted. But then I could be missing >>> something. At either rate, GPL apps do not redistribute all the headers >>> they use, of course. >> The question is, do the GDI+ libraries meet the requirements of the >> "system library" exception in the GPL. If it does, then I don't think >> it matters what EULA applies to the headers, as far as the GPL is >> concerned. (Sure, *we* can't redistribute the GDI+ headers, but neither >> are the gcc folks allowed to redistribute the /usr/include/sys/ headers >> for HP/UX) >> >> But IANAL. >> >> BTW, it looks like the GPLv3 relaxed the definition of "System Library" >> compared to GPLv2. According to the GPL FAQ: >> >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL >> ====================== >> I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual >> Basic) and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking >> my program with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library >> permitted under the GPL? >> >> The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally >> accompanies the compiler or interpreter you are using. The run-time >> libraries here are “System Libraries” as GPLv3 defines them, and as such >> they are not considered part of the Corresponding Source. GPLv2 has a >> similar [ed: similar, but not identical] exception in section 3. >> ====================== >> >> I wonder if this impacts some of the recent discussions we've had >> concerning linking against the msvcrtXX.dll runtimes? Sure, you can't >> redistribute the dll itself, *yourself*, without a VisStudio license -- >> but you could, if I'm reading the faq above correctly, compile GPL apps >> against the msvcrtXX.dll, and instruct users to go get the redistXX >> package from MS themselves -- all without violating either the GPL or >> MS's eula. >> > > And it may come down to whether or not you're using the compilers as > supplied by MS or perhaps at least licensed for use by other compilers. > So if you're willing to use Visual C++ you can create GPL code for > windows. It doesn't sound quite right. Maybe we should as the FSF > lawyers. > > Earnie gdiplus.dll has a C API (see GdiPlusFlat.h), that is wrapped by classes. It works perfectly well with GCC. I wrote some GDI+ gadgets with GCC a while ago. All the wrapper-class code is in Microsoft's header files. gdiplus.dll is part of Windows XP, so I think there is no licensing issue. Peter |