Comment by fooker
3 months ago
No, these are specifically ‘redistributables’.
In the rare case they aren’t, you just require the user to obtain it, wink and nod.
3 months ago
No, these are specifically ‘redistributables’.
In the rare case they aren’t, you just require the user to obtain it, wink and nod.
Microsoft redistributables are just the standard library. Most of the rest of the new DLLs are not backed by any system calls, just by API calls. Except of course for the D3DKMT stuff, that stuff is the real system calls used by Direct3D.
Typically in Microsoft redistributables there are terms in the license that says they can only be licensed for use with a Windows license.
Here's the Visual Studio redistributable licensing requirements:
https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/license-terms/vs2026-ga-v...
There's nothing about Windows licenses in there. There is a specious claim that I can't modify the DLL in some circumstances, but I doubt that's enforceable in any jurisdiction Microsoft could reach me, and to the careful reader the license almost admits as such.
If I'm NVidia in this case, these would be pretty easy to follow. Now I redistribute the DLL: My user downloads the DLL and uses my software (with the DLL) in Wine. Good for them. I have a happy customer. _Maybe_ Microsoft is unhappy, but I'm not sure what they can do besides pound sand: _I_ haven't violated those terms, and my user doesn't have any relationship with Microsoft.
If I've made a mistake and the Visual Studio redistributable isn't typical, what exactly do you think _is_ a typical license from Microsoft that has the force you suggest?
You are missing all the OS DLLs, COM and WinRT components, .NET libraries, that are covered by Windows EULA.
Also the ones downloaded directly via Windows Update from Microsoft servers.
1 reply →