Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Tim McNamara]

On Apr 2, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 07:33 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> If I do not copy the actual file into my .ly file but only have the \include 
>> statement, I have not violated copyright.  It would be up to any subsequent 
>> user to obtain the copyrighted Bob Jones file to use with \include or to 
>> come up with a workaround.
>> 
>> Merely stating 
>> 
>>     \include "Bob Jones.ly" 
>> 
>> in my own .ly file does not violate copyright because it does not reproduce 
>> or distribute the "Bob Jones.ly" file itself.  IMHO copyright is only a 
>> problem if I copy the "Bob Jones.ly" file into my .ly file, in which case I 
>> would probably also not be using \include.
> 
> But now suppose that bobjones.ly defines a number of new functions, \bobFoo,
> \bobBar, etc., and that you use them on a number of occasions throughout your
> own .ly file.  Is the issue so clear any more?

I think again that these are references only and that this causes no problem 
with copyright and the GPL; what will happen for anyone else who tries to 
compile my .ly file is that it will fail.

> If that's not good enough, suppose that you don't just use Bob Jones' 
> functions
> in your .ly file, but you actually construct new functions of your own that 
> use
> Bob's functions.  Can you still say there's no issue?

Interesting question.  Insofar as I am not actually copying any of the "Bob 
Jones.ly" code into my .ly file, I still think "no."  It is still only a 
reference to copyrighted content, not the copyrighted content itself; if my 
music functions actually contain code from "Bob Jones.ly" then yes, there is a 
problem.

I can write a novel that tells the reader to go and read paragraph 3 on page 
241 of "Of Mice and Men" without violating Steinbeck's copyright.  I can even 
write the sentence before and after the reference in such a way that they make 
no sense of the reader doesn't read the paragraph in question, and still not 
violate Steinbeck's copyright.  That's basically what \include does.  If 
someone takes my .ly file and tries to compile it in the absence of having "Bob 
Jones.ly," the compilation will just fail.  On the other hand, if I copy 
Steinbeck's paragraph into my novel without permission, I have violated the 
copyright.

Copyright law is pretty specific (in the US, at least, and that may complicate 
some of these discussions) about what is permitted and prohibited, although 
"content owners" regularly use for uses that are in fact permitted under the 
law and sometimes prevail when judges and juries are idiots.  Fair use, 
derivative works, critical works, etc., are all allowed under US copyright law 
under specific circumstances.

> When you add to that the fact that the particular case we're concerned with
> involves copyleft licensing which gives a particular and precise definition to
> what is considered a "derivative work", it really doesn't seem to me possible 
> to
> just write this off.

Not write it off but let's not make it muckier than it already is.  For one 
thing, there doesn't yet seem to be a real-life example of any of these 
situations existing in the LilyPond world.  Can one even write a LilyPond 
function that is not covered under the GPL, given the terms of the LGPL, GPL3, 
etc?  I am not sure.

There are multiple "copyleft" licenses and most of them have inherent problems- 
just as copyright has some inherent problems (Lessig describes them quite well 
in his book; Stallman is more earthy his his descriptions).  The GPL has 
managed to magnify some of those problems as it has attempted to increase its 
reach over several revisions, which has paradoxically diminished the presence 
of the GPL and has resulted in the proliferation of alternative licenses.  One 
of those problems is that LilyPond .ly files are weird hybrids of code and of 
art.  The GPL only applies to part of the file and a separate set of copyright 
laws and licenses applies to the other part.