[Python-Dev] Is msvcr71.dll re-redistributable?

[Tony Meyer]

[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