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 > >
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4