You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Marton Szasz (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2020/09/18 11:20:00 UTC
[jira] [Updated] (LEGAL-538) Microsoft Visual C++ runtime and
Universal CRT redistributables
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-538?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Marton Szasz updated LEGAL-538:
-------------------------------
Description:
Hi, I'm working on MiNiFi C++ (subproject of Apache NiFi) and I'd like to ask whether it's OK to link to Visual C++ runtime DLLs and Universal C Runtime DLLs in our build process with including them in the resulting package, but without including them in the source code repository?
Visual C++ Runtime license: [https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/license-terms/mlt552233/] relevant section: 2.a. Utilities.
Visual C++ runtime files in the Visual Studio redist list: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/productinfo/2017-redistribution-vs#visual-c-runtime-files]
The same question arises regarding the Universal C Runtime, which is part of the Windows SDK.
license: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/windows-sdk/license-terms-ewdk] relevant section: 2.a.i.1. REDIST.TXT files.
Microsoft seems to allow the redistribution of such DLLs, but compatibility with the Apache License is not clear. They seem to fall under Category B, no modification licenses. Is this correct? [https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification]
Are there any differences from the legal standpoint between distributing merge modules, DLLs or statically linking to these libraries?
If all of the above is allowed, is it possible to distribute convenience binaries (MSI package) that include these artifacts?
was:
Hi, I'm working on MiNiFi C++ (subproject of Apache NiFi) and I'd like to ask whether it's OK to link to Visual C++ runtime DLLs and Universal C Runtime DLLs in our build process, without including them in any form in the source repository?
Visual C++ Runtime license: [https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/license-terms/mlt552233/] relevant section: 2.a. Utilities.
Visual C++ runtime files in the Visual Studio redist list: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/productinfo/2017-redistribution-vs#visual-c-runtime-files]
The same question arises regarding the Universal C Runtime, which is part of the Windows SDK.
license: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/windows-sdk/license-terms-ewdk] relevant section: 2.a.i.1. REDIST.TXT files.
Microsoft seems to allow the redistribution of such DLLs, but compatibility with the Apache License is not clear. They seem to fall under Category B, no modification licenses. Is this correct? [https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification]
Are there any differences from the legal standpoint between distributing merge modules, DLLs or statically linking to these libraries?
If all of the above is allowed, is it possible to distribute convenience binaries (MSI package) that include these artifacts?
> Microsoft Visual C++ runtime and Universal CRT redistributables
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-538
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-538
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Marton Szasz
> Priority: Major
>
> Hi, I'm working on MiNiFi C++ (subproject of Apache NiFi) and I'd like to ask whether it's OK to link to Visual C++ runtime DLLs and Universal C Runtime DLLs in our build process with including them in the resulting package, but without including them in the source code repository?
> Visual C++ Runtime license: [https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/license-terms/mlt552233/] relevant section: 2.a. Utilities.
> Visual C++ runtime files in the Visual Studio redist list: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/productinfo/2017-redistribution-vs#visual-c-runtime-files]
>
> The same question arises regarding the Universal C Runtime, which is part of the Windows SDK.
> license: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/windows-sdk/license-terms-ewdk] relevant section: 2.a.i.1. REDIST.TXT files.
> Microsoft seems to allow the redistribution of such DLLs, but compatibility with the Apache License is not clear. They seem to fall under Category B, no modification licenses. Is this correct? [https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification]
> Are there any differences from the legal standpoint between distributing merge modules, DLLs or statically linking to these libraries?
> If all of the above is allowed, is it possible to distribute convenience binaries (MSI package) that include these artifacts?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org