Re: New version of articulate available

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:24:42AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Not likely to work well.  It is not even clear that Peter can
>> release/distribute it under GPL version 2.0 unless it will work
>> unmodified with a version of Lilypond released under GPL version 2.0.
>> If it doesn't, the question is whether it counts as being a derivative
>> of Lilypond.
>
> The suggestion that a .ly file would somehow be a derivative work
> of lilypond is ridiculous.

Depends on how interlocked and crossdependent it is with internals of
Lilypond and whether or not stuff has been cross-copied.

> Writing a C++ to be compiled with gcc does not constitute a
> derivate work of gcc.

If the code is part of a C compiler based on gcc, things are not
reasonably separate to warrant talking of "mere aggregation" without
examining the details.

A .ly file that represents some score certainly is separate from
Lilypond.  A .ly file that is intended to run as an integrated part of
Lilypond when typesetting, however: I would not be able to call that a
separate work without analyzing the source.

> Writing an html file to be displayed in Firefox does not consistute a
> derivative work of firefox.

Writing a renderer in Javascript intended to do part of the display job
of Firefox certainly results in an overall work that cannot in all cases
considered the Javascript renderer a separate and independent work from
Firefox.

> Creating graphics in GIMP does not constitute a derivative work of
> gimp.  etc.

> articulate.ly is a 668-line .ly file containing a bunch of scheme.
> It is absolutely not a derivative work of lilypond.

That is not the question.  The license of Lilypond _and_ the license of
articulate.ly _demand_ that the work _as_ _a_ _whole_ (with all its
parts) be licensed under the GPLv3+ or GPLv2, respectively.

If those works can't be reasonably considered independent, distributing
them as one work intended to do one job is in breach of the respective
licenses.

> I can't imagine how anything that we (potentially) distribute
> could be more "mere aggrevation" than articulate.ly.

"aggregation", please.  See above.

>> Any other GPLvx.0 only (where x includes 3) bombs waiting to happen in
>> the Lilypond code base?
>
> A few quick greps suggests that we have some "2.0 or later" stuff,
> which isn't a problem.  texinfo.tex, the big contender in my mind
> for 2.0, is 3.0 or later.

texinfo is not operating interlocked with or as a part of Lilypond, but
used as a separate independent documentation compiler as far as I can
tell, even though calling it is part of the build process.  So I don't
think its license, whatever it may be, should provide a problem as long
as we don't put a general "everything in this tarball is distributed
under license xxx" claim somewhere.

Lilypond-book's calls of various TeX engines also don't exercise
anything but their standard exposed and published API, so this also just
constitutes mere aggregation with regard to the licenses.

That it (and other components) are written in Python is also not an
issue.  And so on.

I don't see that articulate.ly can be considered independent and
separate like that.  I'd have to look at it to tell.

Since there is no published or generally accessible Midi API in Lilypond
(I'd certainly want for one to be there), I have my doubts.

-- 
David Kastrup