Installing Problems

[Springheel]

I don't see a sticky thread on this...are there any instructions for how to install the editor? Does it have to go in a particular place? I just used the installer, but when I try to run it I get an error saying:

 

This application has failed to start because MSVCR71.dll was not found.

[New Horizon]

I don't see a sticky thread on this...are there any instructions for how to install the editor? Does it have to go in a particular place? I just used the installer, but when I try to run it I get an error saying:

 

Nope, it should just install painlessly. You might need to download MSVCR71.dll (it's just part of the windows runtime library) and drop it into your system32 folder. I didn't get that error when I installed DR, but I'm running server 2003...so it likely came with it or was installed by another application.

 

Orb: Is it a file we need to consider including?

[SneaksieDave]

Interesting. And I don't get that error here, because I have that file on my system from the software at work - I even remember it by name, as it was once missing from our installs too. Based on that I'd say it definitely needs to be part of the distribution.

[sparhawk]

Question is: CAN we legally distribute this file?

[OrbWeaver]

Question is: CAN we legally distribute this file?

 

That would be my concern as well. Unlike all of the other parts of the distribution, which are open source, MSVC is copyrighted by Microsoft.

[sparhawk]

I think normally such DLLs are allowed to ship with a product, but I'm not sure in this case. If it is bundled, so you can not download it seperately it should be ok, as it is bundled with the application.

 

Questions, how can we make sure? Ask Microsoft?

[greebo]

I don't think that we have to deliver this file, as it is missing on only one system at the moment. We should rather find out why it's missing on Springheel's system and what package it's usually part of.

[SneaksieDave]

A quick search shows that this is a commonly missing file. There are a few sites that distribute it as "dll download" type of services, so I guess it's legal. I'll try to remember to ask at work if we take any special considerations to distribute it (which I strongly doubt - I'm the one who tracked the bug, and basically the fix was to simply include in in the next build; done and done). Then again that doesn't prove anything, considering our guys.

[New Horizon]

I don't think that we have to deliver this file, as it is missing on only one system at the moment. We should rather find out why it's missing on Springheel's system and what package it's usually part of.

 

When I ran xp it was missing as well, so I'm not sure if server 2003 includes it, it was installed with something else, or perhaps I added it to my system the last time I installed DR. Quite possible, since it has been a long while now since I've reformatted.

[Komag]

It was missing for me too

[OrbWeaver]

It's probably the sort of DLL that tends to get installed with certain apps, like the vbrun300.dll and siblings that you used to have to install for VB applications. This would be why some people have it and others don't.

[greebo]

What sort of dll is that and why does DarkRadiant rely on it? Is it a GTK-specific requirement?

 

We could a) deliver it along with DarkRadiant, as suggested or advise the users to download the file on their own (which is probably unwanted, but an easy workaround as the file seems to be publically available).

 

edit: I googled a bit around and it is mentioned at some places that MinGW is linking to the MSVC runtime lib. Hm.

[OrbWeaver]

What sort of dll is that and why does DarkRadiant rely on it? Is it a GTK-specific requirement?

 

No, it's the Microsoft C runtime, providing functions like printf(). I don't know if it also provides C++ functions, or if those are linked in by MinGW.

 

We could a) deliver it along with DarkRadiant, as suggested or advise the users to download the file on their own (which is probably unwanted, but an easy workaround as the file seems to be publically available).

 

We probably could deliver it, since it seems to be freely redistributable, however I am uneasy about including closed-source material in with the distribution. It might even be contrary to the SourceForge terms and conditions, which require that your code is open source (maybe they have an exception for redistributable Win32 runtimes, I don't know).

[greebo]

I found this on support.microsoft.com, although it's not exactly clear and it doesn't resolve the sourceforge question:

 

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...kb;en-us;326922

[OrbWeaver]

I am not entirely sure we can legally distribute this DLL, anyway. From a QT discussion thread (http://www.qtforum.org/article/9100/3/Lack-of-MSVC-support-in-Qt-GPL-for-Windows-disappo.html)

 

3.1If you are authorized and choose to redistribute Sample Code or Redistributable Code (collectively, the "Redistributables") as described in Section 2, you agree: (i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code) to distribute the Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software application product developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables ("Licensee Software"); (ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows platforms; (iii) to distribute the Licensee Software containing the Redistributables pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be "break-the-seal", "click-wrap" or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA; (iv) not to use Microsoft's name, logo, or trademarks to market the Licensee Software; (v) to display your own valid copyright notice which shall be sufficient to protect Microsoft's copyright in the Software; (vi) not to remove or obscure any copyright, trademark or patent notices that appear on the Software as delivered to you; (vii) to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the Licensee Software; (viii) otherwise comply with the terms of this EULA; and (ix) agree that Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted.

 

Since we (1) are not "authorised" to distribute this DLL since we have not accepted the EULA for MSVC++ development tools, (2) are distributing under the GPL without a "protective" EULA and (3) under no circumstances are entering into any agreement to indemnify or protect Microsoft in a lawsuit, I don't think we can include this file.

[greebo]

Then there is the option (2) that remains: provide the user with detailed instructions on how to obtain the file. Do we have other possibilities?

[sparhawk]

Yes. Somebody, who has access to a licensed version of the compiler, and thus is eligible to redistribute it, can write a small dummy app. Maybe only presenting our logo, which needs that DLL and can be shipped with the mod.

I can check if that DLL is shipped with Visual Studio 6.0 (which I doubt), in which case, I could write such an app.

[OrbWeaver]

It would be easier to just display a page in the installer mentioning that the DLL is needed and giving a URL where it can be downloaded. I will see if this is possible.

[sparhawk]

Suchn an app has only be written once, and doesn't need to be maintained. It doesn't even need to work on all systems, but it doesn't rely on some site, that might get shut down for this very reason.

[OrbWeaver]

Actually I think the Microsoft EULA will still get in the way of that approach:

 

(i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code) to distribute the Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software application product developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables ("Licensee Software");

 

Looks like they foresaw that particular loophole, whereby you create a useless app that does nothing but allows you to install the DLLs.

[sparhawk]

Too bad. Fortunate that this crap has no legal binding for me, but that doesn't help people in countries where it applies.

[OrbWeaver]

I'm no lawyer, but I think this particular condition would be universally applicable because it involves the distribution of copyrighted material, which is specifically covered by law. Essentially they are saying "You can distribute our file, but ONLY subject to the following conditions", which if ruled unenforceable would result in you not having permission to distribute it at all.