Re: Once for all and one last time (was Future of openLilyLib)

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <simon.albrecht@mail.de> writes:

> Dear Karsten and list,
>
> On 22.09.20 22:40, Karsten Reincke wrote:
>> 5) I've learned, that all(?) of you consider this an untenable if
>> not silly position and that the PDFs and midi-files compiled by
>> Lilypond are never affected by the strong copyleft effect of the
>> GPL. That's good to hear. But I don't understand, why - under this
>> circumstances - it should be garbage to add a respective clarifying
>> statement (the 'include clause' or however you want to name it), if
>> it is at least partially conceivable that such a position will be
>> taken and if all of you do not want to use / establish its
>> consequences. But that's my problem. 
>
>
> I would like to join in asking this question, namely what’s the reason
> not to add such an ‘include clause’? (Am I correct in gathering that 
> LGPL basically means GPL + such an include clause?)

No, you are not correct.  The LGPL has more lenient conditions.  It also
has a clause that allows it to be replaced by the GPL, and when
combining a GPLed work with an LGPLed work to form a common whole,
invoking that clause is the only way in which you can arrive at a
redistributable whole.

The main problem of adding _anything_ to a license of the GPL/LGPL
flavor is that the result is incompatible to software licensed under
GPL/LGPL without such an addition, defeating the significant goal of
interoperability and reusability of the GNU code base.

-- 
David Kastrup