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

[Vincent Wehren]

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/VisualStudiodotnetEnterpriseArchitect2002-eula.htm

> 
>>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
> 
>