Re: Potential LSR licensing violations

[Werner LEMBERG]

> The LSR is advertised as being released under the public domain.
> [...]
>
> The following exceptions apply:
> 
>   * It does not apply to input files (contained in the directory
>     tree Documentation/snippets/); these are in the public domain.
>     [...]
> 
> So far, so good. However, take this snippet:
> 
> https://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=102
> 
> It begins with 300 lines of code that used to be in the LilyPond
> repository, released under the GPL, before they were considered
> legacy and moved to a snippet.  I am pretty sure this violates the
> GPL.  300 lines looks too much for fair use law to apply, doesn't
> it?

Assuming that it is ok with <janneke@gnu.org>, we can put his
outdated, GPLed code into the public domain.  Harm, do you remember
the history of this snippet?  [For such historical research it would
be great if the LSR was actually a git repository that gets eventually
mapped to a database by a script.  Sebastiano, is there any chance for
such a thing?]

I guess the opposite happens, too: there are probably some snippets
that have been incorporated into LilyPond code over the years.  Such
code must be sufficiently rewritten so that the GPL can be applied.

> What should we do about these snippets?  Delete them?  Introduce an
> exception "snippets are in the public domain unless stated
> otherwise" and add headers to them stating they are under the GPL?

This sounds like a good temporary solution.  However, I suggest that
we either get permission by the author to change the license,[*] or
the code gets rewritten eventually so that the 'correct' license can
be applied (again).


    Werner


[*] Here comes the benefit of transferring the copyright to the FSF,
    which can handle such things without having to ask the original
    author AFAIK.  LilyPond, however, inspite of being a GNU project,
    doesn't ask contributors for such a copyright transfer.