On 3 Feb 2005, at 02:01, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Sounds like this puts all Python users in the clear, since Python is the Licensee Software in that case. So, anybody can distribute msvcr71 as "part of" Python.
OTOH, the other wording sounds like Python itself has to have a click-wrap, tear-open, or signature EULA! IOW, the EULA appears to prohibit free distribution of the runtime with a program that has no EULA.
So, in an amusing turn of events, the EULA actually appears to forbid the current offering of Python for Windows, since it does not have such a EULA.
That was also my conclusion last year:-(
But at least Python can still be distributed without msvcr71, putting
the burden of obtaining it on the end user, because of Python's
license. In another project we're using GPL, and careful reading
(disclaimer: IANAL) has not convinced me that GPL and the EULA are
compatible. Actually, I have this vague feeling that the MSVC 7 EULA
(plus the fact that MS isn't shipping msvcr71.dll with Windows) might
have been drafted specifically to be incompatible with the clause in
GPL that doesn't allow you to link against third party libraries unless
they're part of the OS.
What we've done in that project is link with msvcr71.dll, but not
include it in the installer. I think that we could (theoretically)
still be dragged into court by the FSF, but at least not by Microsoft.
--
Jack Jansen,