Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 31. Oktober 2016 01:43:26 GMT-07:00, schrieb David Kastrup 
> <address@hidden>:
>>Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> To make what I consider an apt analogy, using gcc doesn't require any
>>> programs you create to be GPL'd.
>>
>>GCC has a special exception in the licensing exempting the startup
>>stubs
>>and other fixed material it might place into the code from requiring
>>licensing.  The generated code as such is exempt from requiring a
>>license anyway.
>>
>>Similar concerns for LilyPond would hold for library/LSR code bundled
>>into the PDF file as source (we have an option for that or an issue for
>>creating such an option).  And fonts in extractable forms of embedding.
>>
>>So it's not a no-brainer, but the concerns voiced by Urs are mostly
>>incorrect.
>
> Maybe not concretely enough, so I'll give a concrete example. Imagine
> the following project:
>
> An edition project is to be made available as
> - printed copies
> - PDF files 
> - a Git repository
>
> The repository contains among others
> - encoded music
> - Scheme functions created for the project
> - Scheme functions created using included code from LilyPond and GPLed
> openLilyLib
> - Scheme functions created by modifying functions copied from LilyPond

Only the very last item is relevant if by "included code" you mean
"\include ...".

> Doesn't the GPL prevent me from making that repository available
> under, say, a non-free CC license or under a no-license like "you may
> read the code and use it to produce scores but you may not
> redistribute a modified version"?

The GPL applies only with the very last item.  All the rest is
irrelevant.  Note that the principal distribution is not a modified
version of LilyPond but a document and stuff particular to creating that
document with the help of LilyPond, but "with the help of LilyPond" does
not imply LilyPond as a component of the project, just as a tool
required for it.

With Elisp files for Emacs, I'd still draw the line at the same place
(but the legal precedence is muddy enough that the FSF does not commit
to stating Elisp libraries being covered by Emacs' GPL as being
unaffected, but they will also likely not venture to court for it).  But
here the "application" involves running Emacs, and the actual
_application_ of a music score, namely making use of the PDF or Midi
file, does not involve running LilyPond.

> I don't think one can that easily say "it's all documents and the
> license doesn't apply to that".

And who said that?  I think that we have enough real people on the list
that we don't need to invent straw men.

-- 
David Kastrup