From: Werner F. B. <wer...@fr...> - 2005-05-19 14:49:13
|
Hi Thomas, Did the license issue over msvcr71.dll ever get clarified? Searched with Google and on python.org but could not find a conclusive answer. It would be nice if the python core developers who were given the MS developement stuff by Microsoft would obtain some clarification on this issue from MS. See you Werner |
From: Thomas H. <th...@py...> - 2005-05-20 08:12:21
|
Werner F. Bruhin schrieb: > Hi Thomas, > > Did the license issue over msvcr71.dll ever get clarified? Searched > with Google and on python.org but could not find a conclusive answer. > > It would be nice if the python core developers who were given the MS > developement stuff by Microsoft would obtain some clarification on > this issue from MS. AFAIK, this hasn't been resolved. I have posted about this to the PSF mailing list, maybe the Python software foundation is willing to invest in this. Thomas |
From: <he...@or...> - 2005-05-20 10:35:49
|
>> Did the license issue over msvcr71.dll ever get clarified? Searched >> with Google and on python.org but could not find a conclusive answer. >> >> It would be nice if the python core developers who were given the MS >> developement stuff by Microsoft would obtain some clarification on >> this issue from MS. > > AFAIK, this hasn't been resolved. I've read about 3 problems regarding msvcr71.dll. In my understanding, two of them were clarified as non issues. 1. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the EULA. This restriction only applies to the sample code included in Visual Studio .NET 2003. 2. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the GPL itself. Clarified in the FSF Faq. 3. The EULA does not allow to reredistribute msvcr71.dll. EULA spanish version (my english isn't good enough) is cristal clear: you may distribute the library if and only if - you (the author of the software) own a legit copy of VS and - you distribute your software with a license that does not contradict the EULA and - such license has a mechanism for approval (wrap-up and click-to-accept are valid) or - you don't own a legit copy of VS but you are allowed by the author to redistribute a software that carries out the previous statements and - you don't redistribute the library alone but as part of the mentioned software. Hence, py2exe users need a legit copy of VS and to write an EULA compatible license and to implement a way for approval if they want to include msvcr71.dll in their package. (*) > I have posted about this to the PSF mailing list, maybe the > Python software foundation is willing to invest in this. Thanks, that would be great. Regards, -Hernan. (*) Again, this is how I interpret the spanish version of the EULA though I'd bet that the english is not more liberal than it. |
From: Werner F. B. <wer...@fr...> - 2005-05-20 12:30:49
|
Hi Hernán, Hernán Martínez Foffani wrote: >>>Did the license issue over msvcr71.dll ever get clarified? Searched >>>with Google and on python.org but could not find a conclusive answer. >>> >>>It would be nice if the python core developers who were given the MS >>>developement stuff by Microsoft would obtain some clarification on >>>this issue from MS. >> >>AFAIK, this hasn't been resolved. > > > I've read about 3 problems regarding msvcr71.dll. In my > understanding, two of them were clarified as non issues. > > 1. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the EULA. > This restriction only applies to the sample code included in > Visual Studio .NET 2003. > > 2. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the GPL > itself. Clarified in the FSF Faq. Could not find this, do you have alink. > > 3. The EULA does not allow to reredistribute msvcr71.dll. Can one get this EULA without having to get VS somewhere? > > EULA spanish version (my english isn't good enough) is cristal > clear: you may distribute the library if and only if > - you (the author of the software) own a legit copy of VS and > - you distribute your software with a license that does not > contradict the EULA and > - such license has a mechanism for approval (wrap-up and > click-to-accept are valid) > or > - you don't own a legit copy of VS but you are allowed by > the author to redistribute a software that carries out the > previous statements and I would assume that Python owns a legit copy of VS (as they were given it by Microsoft). We distribute Python programs (with the help of py2exe) so we should be able to distribute our software (shareware, commerical or whatever). If this is not true/the case then the current Python license is very misleading if not false! > - you don't redistribute the library alone but as part of > the mentioned software. > > Hence, py2exe users need a legit copy of VS and to write an > EULA compatible license and to implement a way for approval > if they want to include msvcr71.dll in their package. (*) See above comment. > > >>I have posted about this to the PSF mailing list, maybe the >>Python software foundation is willing to invest in this. > > > Thanks, that would be great. > > Regards, > -Hernan. > > (*) Again, this is how I interpret the spanish version of the > EULA though I'd bet that the english is not more liberal than > it. > See you Werner > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes > Want to be the first software developer in space? > Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click |
From: <he...@or...> - 2005-05-20 14:37:46
|
>> 2. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the GPL >> itself. Clarified in the FSF Faq. > Could not find this, do you have alink. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL >> >> 3. The EULA does not allow to reredistribute msvcr71.dll. > Can one get this EULA without having to get VS somewhere? Sorry. I thought that I've once read it online but I can't find it now. Anyway, I believe that the EULA for Visual C++ Toolkit is pretty much the same: http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/eula.aspx >> EULA spanish version (my english isn't good enough) is cristal >> clear: you may distribute the library if and only if >> - you (the author of the software) own a legit copy of VS and >> - you distribute your software with a license that does not >> contradict the EULA and >> - such license has a mechanism for approval (wrap-up and >> click-to-accept are valid) or >> - you don't own a legit copy of VS but you are allowed by >> the author to redistribute a software that carries out the >> previous statements and >> - you don't redistribute the library alone but as part of the >> mentioned software. > I would assume that Python owns a legit copy of VS (as they were given > it by Microsoft). We distribute Python programs (with the help of > py2exe) so we should be able to distribute our software (shareware, > commerical or whatever). > > If this is not true/the case then the current Python license is very > misleading if not false! Misleading? Why? We may distribute *our* work (be it written in Python, C, compiled to .pyc, whatever) We may also redistribute the Python interpreter (python-dev's work) even in binaries. Those are everybody's rights. Period. But, for those authors who do not own a copy of VS, they *should not* split their Python interpreter by taking the Microsoft libraries they might need for their own purpose of distribution. One might say that py2exe users don't split the Python interpreter but include it as a whole. While this point might be a matter of opinion (*) there's no doubt that they *must at least* provide their end-users a way to "sign" the Python Software License, an action demanded by Microsoft's EULA. -H. (*) I think that at least we need that the PSF to declare it explicitly. |
From: Thomas H. <th...@py...> - 2005-05-20 14:36:01
|
>> I've read about 3 problems regarding msvcr71.dll. In my >> understanding, two of them were clarified as non issues. >> >> 1. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the EULA. >> This restriction only applies to the sample code included in >> Visual Studio .NET 2003. >> >> 2. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the GPL >> itself. Clarified in the FSF Faq. > > Could not find this, do you have alink. AFAIK, GPL code cannot be linked with closed source dlls not included with the operating system. Or something like that. >> >> 3. The EULA does not allow to reredistribute msvcr71.dll. > > Can one get this EULA without having to get VS somewhere? The link should be in the thread on python-dev about this topic somewhere. >>> I have posted about this to the PSF mailing list, maybe the >>> Python software foundation is willing to invest in this. >> >> >> >> Thanks, that would be great. > This night, I will post a few questions on the PSF mailing list about this topic. Here is the draft so far, it would be nice if you could review it: """ 1. I'm not so sure that python.org windows installer for Python 2.4, which includes the MSVCR71.DLL, respects the conditions that MS requires in their eula.txt. While personally I do not care too much about this fact Martin v. Löwis or the PSF probably has to care. The same for people redistributing the Python distribution. 2. py2exe is a popular package to build executables containing parts of the python interpreter, its library, plus custom modules and packages. The executables need msvcr71.dll on the target system. Hence, developers packaging python applications with py2exe need to redistribute this dll. Most developers (users of py2exe) don't have a Visual Studio license, so they don't hve the right to distribute it per se. To complicate things further, the next version of py2exe will include code that is licensed with the MPL. Other code in py2exe is licensed with the MIT license. Since I have an own license for MS Visual Studio .NET 2003, I have the legal right (per my understanding of MS EULA), to include msvcr71.dll with the binary py2exe distribution itself, and I could relicense the redistribution of this dll with executables created with py2exe. I am, however, not willing to take legal risc in doing this (as far as possible). Also, since I'm a programmer, I would like to concentrate on the technical instead of the legal aspects of my work. So, for py2exe I would ask the lawyer: How should the license for the binary distribution of py2exe look like, so that I respect all conditions in both the MPL and the MS EULA (the MIT part should not be a problem), and that it is possible to allow the py2exe users to redistibute this MS dll. Thanks, Thomas ---- Some excerpts (sp?) of the EULA.TXT that is included with my copy of VS.NET 2003: <quote> 2.2 Redistributable Code-General. Microsoft grants you a limited, nonexclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce and distribute the object code form of any portion of the Software listed in REDIST.TXT ('Redistributable Code'). For general redistribution requirements for Redistributable Code, see Section 3.1 below. 3.1 General Distribution Requirements. (a) If you choose to redistribute Sample Code, or Redistributable Code (collectively, the 'Redistributables') as described in Section 2, you agree: (i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code), to distribute the Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software application product developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables ('Licensee Software'); (ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows platforms; (iii) that if the Licensee Software is distributed beyond Licensee’s premises or externally from Licensee’s organization, to distribute the Licensee Software containing the Redistributables pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be “break-the-seal”, “click-wrap” or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA; (iv) not to use Microsoft’s name, logo, or trademarks to market the Licensee Software; (v) to display your own valid copyright notice which shall be sufficient to protect Microsoft’s copyright in the Software; (vi) not to remove or obscure any copyright, trademark or patent notices that appear on the Software as delivered to you; (vii) to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney’s fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the Licensee Software; (viii) to otherwise comply with the terms of this EULA; and (ix) agree that Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted. You also agree not to permit further distribution of the Redistributables by your end users except you may permit further redistribution of the Redistributables by your distributors to your end-user customers if your distributors only distribute the Redistributables in conjunction with, and as part of, the Licensee Software, you comply with all other terms of this EULA, and your distributors comply with all restrictions of this EULA that are applicable to you. (b) If you use the Redistributables, then in addition to your compliance with the applicable distribution requirements described for the Redistributables, the following also applies. Your license rights to the Redistributables are conditioned upon your not (i) creating derivative works of the Redistributables in any manner that would cause the Redistributables in whole or in part to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded License; or (ii) distributing the Redistributables (or derivative works thereof) in any manner that would cause the Redistributables to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded License. An “Excluded License” is any license that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of software subject to the Excluded License, that such software or other software combined and/or distributed with such software be (x) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (y) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (z) redistributable at no charge. <end quote> """ |
From: <he...@or...> - 2005-05-20 15:25:39
|
>>> I've read about 3 problems regarding msvcr71.dll. In my >>> understanding, two of them were clarified as non issues. >>> >>> 1. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the EULA. >>> This restriction only applies to the sample code included in Visual >>> Studio .NET 2003. >>> >>> 2. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the GPL >>> itself. Clarified in the FSF Faq. >> >> Could not find this, do you have alink. > > AFAIK, GPL code cannot be linked with closed source dlls not included > with the operating system. Or something like that. Apparently the FSF understands that the C compiler is part of the operating system. > ... > Since I have an own license for MS Visual Studio .NET 2003, I have > the legal right (per my understanding of MS EULA), to include > msvcr71.dll with the binary py2exe distribution itself, and I could > relicense the redistribution of this dll with executables created > with py2exe. I am, however, not willing to take legal risc in doing > this (as far as possible). Also, since I'm a programmer, I would > like to concentrate on the technical instead of the legal aspects of > my work. Why do *you* (the author of py2exe) need to include msvcr71.dll? Isn't py2exe site-package'd? If I write my app using python 2.3 I won't need to pack msvcr71.dll. If I write my app using python 2.4, msvcr71.dll is included in python's binary distribution. If I write my app using python 2.4 source distribution I'll need VS 2003 to compile python first and won't be any issue regarding msvcr71.dll afterwards. > So, for py2exe I would ask the lawyer: How should the license for > the binary distribution of py2exe look like, so that I respect all > conditions in both the MPL and the MS EULA (the MIT part should not > be a problem), and that it is possible to allow the py2exe users to > redistibute this MS dll. Well... if I were you I'd change "py2exe" to "Python" and "I" to "PSF". (I do believe that a py2exe user is not distributing py2exe itself but the Python interpreter.) -H. |
From: Werner F. B. <wer...@fr...> - 2005-05-20 16:38:13
|
Hernán Martínez Foffani wrote: >>>>I've read about 3 problems regarding msvcr71.dll. In my >>>>understanding, two of them were clarified as non issues. >>>> >>>>1. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the EULA. >>>>This restriction only applies to the sample code included in Visual >>>>Studio .NET 2003. >>>> >>>>2. msvcr71.dll not compatible with GPL code regarding the GPL >>>>itself. Clarified in the FSF Faq. >>> >>>Could not find this, do you have alink. >> >>AFAIK, GPL code cannot be linked with closed source dlls not included >>with the operating system. Or something like that. > > > Apparently the FSF understands that the C compiler is part of > the operating system. > > >>... >>Since I have an own license for MS Visual Studio .NET 2003, I have >>the legal right (per my understanding of MS EULA), to include >>msvcr71.dll with the binary py2exe distribution itself, and I could >>relicense the redistribution of this dll with executables created >>with py2exe. I am, however, not willing to take legal risc in doing >>this (as far as possible). Also, since I'm a programmer, I would >>like to concentrate on the technical instead of the legal aspects of >>my work. > > > Why do *you* (the author of py2exe) need to include msvcr71.dll? > Isn't py2exe site-package'd? He (Thomas) doesn't but he is a nice chap and looks out for us. > > If I write my app using python 2.3 I won't need to pack msvcr71.dll. > If I write my app using python 2.4, msvcr71.dll is included in > python's binary distribution. But you would need to include MSVCP60.dll which is if I correctly understand the predecessor and I believe the problem is that the EULA is not quite the same for both of them, but then I might be wrong here. > If I write my app using python 2.4 source distribution I'll need > VS 2003 to compile python first and won't be any issue regarding > msvcr71.dll afterwards. > > >>So, for py2exe I would ask the lawyer: How should the license for >>the binary distribution of py2exe look like, so that I respect all >>conditions in both the MPL and the MS EULA (the MIT part should not >>be a problem), and that it is possible to allow the py2exe users to >>redistibute this MS dll. > > > Well... if I were you I'd change "py2exe" to "Python" and "I" to "PSF". > (I do believe that a py2exe user is not distributing py2exe itself but > the Python interpreter.) > > -H. > > See you Werner > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes > Want to be the first software developer in space? > Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click |
From: <he...@or...> - 2005-05-20 17:59:53
|
[I asked regarding Thomas...] >> Why do *you* (the author of py2exe) need to include msvcr71.dll? >> Isn't py2exe site-package'd? > He (Thomas) doesn't but he is a nice chap and looks out for us. If that's the only reason (meaning that there's no a technical one) I'd say that a wrong way to "solve" the problem. >> If I write my app using python 2.3 I won't need to pack msvcr71.dll. >> If I write my app using python 2.4, msvcr71.dll is included in >> python's binary distribution. > > But you would need to include MSVCP60.dll which is if I correctly > understand the predecessor and I believe the problem is that the EULA > is not quite the same for both of them, but then I might be wrong > here. The predecesor was MSVCR70.DLL. It hasn't been a problem before because Microsoft herself considered it part of the O.S. Now she changed her mind and the new MSVCR71.DLL must be distributed by the author of the work. He (the author) must have legit rights to do so. Those rights are detailed in VS 2003 EULA. -H. |
From: Werner F. B. <wer...@fr...> - 2005-05-21 09:22:35
|
Hi Hernan, Hernan Martínez Foffani wrote: > [I asked regarding Thomas...] > >>>Why do *you* (the author of py2exe) need to include msvcr71.dll? >>>Isn't py2exe site-package'd? >> >>He (Thomas) doesn't but he is a nice chap and looks out for us. > > > If that's the only reason (meaning that there's no a technical one) > I'd say that a wrong way to "solve" the problem. Sorry forgot the smilly at the end of my sentence. See you Werner > > >>>If I write my app using python 2.3 I won't need to pack msvcr71.dll. >>>If I write my app using python 2.4, msvcr71.dll is included in >>>python's binary distribution. >> >>But you would need to include MSVCP60.dll which is if I correctly >>understand the predecessor and I believe the problem is that the EULA >>is not quite the same for both of them, but then I might be wrong >>here. > > > The predecesor was MSVCR70.DLL. It hasn't been a problem before > because Microsoft herself considered it part of the O.S. Now she > changed her mind and the new MSVCR71.DLL must be distributed by the > author of the work. He (the author) must have legit rights to do so. > Those rights are detailed in VS 2003 EULA. > > -H. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes > Want to be the first software developer in space? > Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click |
From: RayS <ra...@bl...> - 2005-05-20 15:09:35
|
At 05:27 AM 5/20/2005, Werner F. Bruhin wrote: >>Hence, py2exe users need a legit copy of VS and to write an >>EULA compatible license and to implement a way for approval >>if they want to include msvcr71.dll in their package. (*) I have not been including it for the reason of package size; if a user does not have it, they can download it from a variety of places - presumably legally: http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/pop.php?msvcr71 http://www.dlldump.com/cgi-bin/testwrap/downloadcounts.cgi?rt=count&path=dllfiles/M/MSVCR71.dll Office update contains the dll: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/info.aspx?na=90&p=&SrcDisplayLang=en&SrcCategoryId=&SrcFamilyId=d21f3d89-46ac-4a27-b4c7-be05723d53e5&genscs=&u=http%3a%2f%2fdownload.microsoft.com%2fdownload%2fb%2f4%2f3%2fb43fab6b-862a-4371-ab31-0f8e681f8e28%2fBusinessContactManager-kb839881-fullfile-enu.exe I would assume that there is no restriction on distributing software that simply requires it... I suppose you could trap for it, automatically alert the user and start a download with os.startfile() OTOH, if you sent CDs, it is more of an issue. >AFAIK, GPL code cannot be linked with closed source dlls not included with the operating system. Or something like that. Also, from MS: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;326922 " the Msvcr71.dll/Msvcr70.dll is no longer considered a system file, therefore, distribute Msvcr71.dll/Msvcr70.dll with any application that relies on it. Because it is no longer a system component, install it in your applications Program Files directory with other application-specific code. This prevents your application from using other versions of the CRT library that may be installed on the system paths. When you distribute applications that require the Msvcr71.dll/Msvcr70.dll Shared CRT library, Microsoft recommends that you use the VC_CRT.msm merge module that is included with with Visual C++ .NET instead of directly distributing the DLL file. " So installers/users may want to take heed. >One might say that py2exe users don't split the Python interpreter >but include it as a whole. Which I would agree with; in my view "splitting" the core interpreter simply causes it not not run - the only other alternative is to include an entire Python install on the distribution CD, which is then prohibitive to download-only users. >While this point might be a matter of >opinion (*) there's no doubt that they *must at least* provide their >end-users a way to "sign" the Python Software License, an action >demanded by Microsoft's EULA. Good point, I should see that it is added to the usual Inno Setup verbiage. Ray Schumacher |
From: Werner F. B. <wer...@fr...> - 2005-05-20 16:29:04
|
RayS wrote: > At 05:27 AM 5/20/2005, Werner F. Bruhin wrote: > >>>Hence, py2exe users need a legit copy of VS and to write an >>>EULA compatible license and to implement a way for approval >>>if they want to include msvcr71.dll in their package. (*) > > > I have not been including it for the reason of package size; 340kb worries you? That is the size of the dll I include and it seems to work on both my test machines (Win2000 Pro and Win 98). if a user does not have it, they can download it from a variety of places - presumably legally: > http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/pop.php?msvcr71 Not very user friendly in my view. > > http://www.dlldump.com/cgi-bin/testwrap/downloadcounts.cgi?rt=count&path=dllfiles/M/MSVCR71.dll > > Office update contains the dll: > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/info.aspx?na=90&p=&SrcDisplayLang=en&SrcCategoryId=&SrcFamilyId=d21f3d89-46ac-4a27-b4c7-be05723d53e5&genscs=&u=http%3a%2f%2fdownload.microsoft.com%2fdownload%2fb%2f4%2f3%2fb43fab6b-862a-4371-ab31-0f8e681f8e28%2fBusinessContactManager-kb839881-fullfile-enu.exe > > I would assume that there is no restriction on distributing software that simply requires it... I suppose you could trap for it, automatically alert the user and start a download with os.startfile() > OTOH, if you sent CDs, it is more of an issue. > > > >>AFAIK, GPL code cannot be linked with closed source dlls not included with the operating system. Or something like that. > > > Also, from MS: > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;326922 > " the Msvcr71.dll/Msvcr70.dll is no longer considered a system file, therefore, distribute Msvcr71.dll/Msvcr70.dll with any application that relies on it. Because it is no longer a system component, install it in your applications Program Files directory with other application-specific code. This prevents your application from using other versions of the CRT library that may be installed on the system paths. > When you distribute applications that require the Msvcr71.dll/Msvcr70.dll Shared CRT library, Microsoft recommends that you use the VC_CRT.msm merge module that is included with with Visual C++ .NET instead of directly distributing the DLL file. " > So installers/users may want to take heed. > > >>One might say that py2exe users don't split the Python interpreter >>but include it as a whole. > > > Which I would agree with; in my view "splitting" the core interpreter simply causes it not not run - the only other alternative is to include an entire Python install on the distribution CD, which is then prohibitive to download-only users. > > >>While this point might be a matter of >>opinion (*) there's no doubt that they *must at least* provide their >>end-users a way to "sign" the Python Software License, an action >>demanded by Microsoft's EULA. > > > Good point, I should see that it is added to the usual Inno Setup verbiage. > > Ray Schumacher See you Werner > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes > Want to be the first software developer in space? > Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click |
From: Thomas H. <th...@py...> - 2005-05-20 08:12:21
|
Werner F. Bruhin schrieb: > Hi Thomas, > > Did the license issue over msvcr71.dll ever get clarified? Searched > with Google and on python.org but could not find a conclusive answer. > > It would be nice if the python core developers who were given the MS > developement stuff by Microsoft would obtain some clarification on > this issue from MS. Sure it would be nice, but the core developers don't have this problem themselves. Like me, they have the license to distribute the dll since they own Visual Studio. So, probably, they don't care too much. I'll try to bring up this topic on the PSF mailing list. Thomas |