Alibrary I used in my native Visual C++ application was GPLv3-licensed; I found the GPL acceptable, and thus I was planning to make my application GPL-licensed as well. The application depends on Visual C++ runtime DLLs, and I was planning to distribute them with the application. However, I noticed the following paragraphs in the FAQ (bold-facing by me):
What would be an alternative to this? Static linking would seem to present the same problem, and would be a rather difficult change to implement due to other precompiled binaries. I could ask users to install redistributable runtimes if necessary, but this would present an additional hassle to them. More drastic alternatives would include asking the library author about non-GPL usage (possibly involving payment) or using a different library and a non-GPL license.
In addition to the options listed by QwertyChouskie, you could also ask the copyright owners of the GPL library you are using to make a specific exception for linking to the Visual C++ runtime DLLs. Unless they're specifically against their code being used on Windows, this would not really change anything for them, as Microsoft are unlikely to open up the Visual C++ library anyway, only in order to be compatible with their library. Of course they could take a principled stance, but you can always ask.
3a8082e126