RE: [Python-Dev] Is msvcr71.dll re-redistributable?
[Thanks for bringing this up, BTW, Thomas]. [Thomas Heller]
The 2.4 python.org installer installs msvcr71.dll on the target system.
If someone uses py2exe or a similar tool to create a frozen application, is he allowed to redistribute this msvcr71.dll to other users together with his application or not, even if he doesn't own MSVC?
[Vincent Wehren]
According to the EULA,
Is that the EULA of MS VC++?
you may distribute anything listed in redist.txt:
And, just to be clear, mscvr71.dll is in redist.txt?
"""2.2 Redistributable Code-General. Microsoft grants you a nonexclusive, royalty-free right 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."""
Is it legit to redistribute an EULA? If so, would you mind sending me a copy of this (off-list)?
So the right to distribute is coupled to the a) the EULA and b) redist.txt. (As a side note, the Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 for example contains NO redistributables per redist.txt).
I'm not that familiar with the names of all these things. Is the "Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003" the free thing that you can get?
In the case of not owning a compiler at all, chances seem pretty slim you have any rights to distribute anything.
Well, I 'own' a copy of gcc, which is a compiler <wink>. Can anyone here suggest a way to get around this? As a specific example: the SpamBayes distribution includes a py2exe binary, and it would be nice (although not essential) to build this with 2.4. However, at the moment my name goes down as the release manager, and I don't have (AFAICT) a licence to redistribute msvcr71.dl. Should people in this situation just stick with 2.3 or buy a copy of a MS compiler? =Tony.Meyer
Tony Meyer wrote:
[Thanks for bringing this up, BTW, Thomas].
[Thomas Heller]
[Vincent Wehren]
According to the EULA,
Is that the EULA of MS VC++?
The full text of the EULA for Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 can be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/eula.aspx For VS.NET: http://proprietary.clendons.co.nz/licenses/eula/VisualStudiodotnetEnterprise...
you may distribute anything listed in redist.txt:
And, just to be clear, mscvr71.dll is in redist.txt?
Not in the free toolkit; in the $-version it must be.
I'm not that familiar with the names of all these things. Is the "Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003" the free thing that you can get?
Yep.
In the case of not owning a compiler at all, chances seem pretty slim you have any rights to distribute anything.
Well, I 'own' a copy of gcc, which is a compiler <wink>.
Can anyone here suggest a way to get around this? As a specific example: the SpamBayes distribution includes a py2exe binary, and it would be nice (although not essential) to build this with 2.4. However, at the moment my name goes down as the release manager, and I don't have (AFAICT) a licence to redistribute msvcr71.dl.
Okay: thinking about this for a bit longer: it is the Python interpreter that needs msvcr71.dll, right. You need the python interpreter for py2exe. The distributor of Python is allowed to redistribute msvcr71.dll, and you are acting as re-distributor for the Python interpreter (to end users) and the EULA never even cares for/applies to the frozen binary... -- Vincent Wehren
Should people in this situation just stick with 2.3 or buy a copy of a MS compiler?
=Tony.Meyer
participants (2)
-
Tony Meyer -
Vincent Wehren