Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Joseph Rushton Wakeling <address@hidden> writes:

> For the cases we're considering -- OLLib and the .ly files bundled
> with Lilypond
> -- the _simplest_ method that I can see is to license them
> permissively.  Boost,
> Apache, BSD/MIT/X11 and the GNU All-Permissive Licence are all options here
> (potentially LGPL as well, but then issues may re-arise the moment someone
> copy-pastes a function rather than getting it via \include).  But that's
> bypassing the problem, rather than understanding it.
>
> Yes, most of us dedicated to free software prefer copylefting as much
> as we can, but there are times when the simplicity and flexibility of
> permissive licenses outweighs any possible protection, especially (as
> here) where the likelihood of anyone incorporating the work into a
> proprietary product is minuscule.

LilyPond is a GNU program and so follows the licensing policies of the
GNU project.

-- 
David Kastrup