Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Wols Lists]

On 03/04/13 10:22, address@hidden wrote:
> I think there is one thing this discussion proves impressively: Things
> are much less non-ambiguous than most of the participants assume.

Something I've learnt from my time on Groklaw is that the GPL is, in
fact, extremely clear.

The problem is that many people read into it what they want to see. I've
been guilty of that in the past :-)

And the problem here is very simple - it is the question "What
constitutes a derived work?". Which Joseph is convinced is determined by
the wording of the GPL, and Tim, me, and probably most other people are
convinced is determined by the law.

Because if the law says you don't need a licence, how are the copyright
holders going to enforce said licence? It's as simple as that!

Cheers,
Wol