lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL


From: Anthonys Lists
Subject: Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:57:20 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4

On 02/04/2013 22:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/02/2013 11:28 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
A derivative work is whatever the LAW says it is (whatever that is :-). NO open
source licence defines the term "derivative work", although they may give their
own interpretation of what they think it is.
The actual GPL term is a "covered work", and is specified reasonably precisely.

My little program calls functions from an explicitly GPL-licensed library -- not
from an API with multiple different implementations -- ergo, it's based on a
GPL-licensed work and is a "covered work" in the terms of the GPL.

The whole point of open source licences is they are LICENCES. They GRANT
PERMISSIONS.
Indeed, and a consequence of distributing a "covered work" under
GPL-incompatible terms is that you lose the permissions granted under that 
license.

EXCEPT EXCEPT EXCEPT THE LAW SAYS YOU *DON'T* *NEED* ANY PERMISSION !!!

So, if I'd tried to put a proprietary license on that bit of C code I shared,
for example, I'd have been violating the terms of the permissions granted me on
the GNU Scientific Library; so I'd have lost my right to use the GNU Scientific
Library; and if I continued to use it, I could be sued for using copyrighted
software without permission.

_That's_ where issues of copyright violation come in, not in the question of
whether my piece of code is strictly derivative in the sense of copyright law.

The ONLY way you can be guilty of copyright violation is if THE LAW says you are guilty. If THE LAW says your work is not derivative, then ANY and ALL licences are IRRELEVANT. And that includes the GPL!

The GPL *relies* *on* *the* *law*. If there's a conflict between the GPL and the law, then the law wins. EVERY TIME. And if the law says that your work is not a derivative, then the GPL is a toothless tiger rug. And just as effective.

THE LAW TRUMPS THE GPL. END OF!

Sorry for shouting, but just go ask a lawyer. ANY lawyer with a half-way decent grasp of copyright.

Cheers,
Wol



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]