Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session

[Wols Lists]

On 31/10/16 10:08, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > 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.

To elaborate, the first three items are all your work and you can
licence them as you wish. If they assume the computer has a copy of
lilypond on it, that is the end-user's problem.

As David says, the only problem is where you have taken and modified
lilypond (GPL) code.

And imho, provided everything is in source code form, you can't breach
the GPL anyway. Even if you have mixed incompatible licences with it.
You may give your downstream a headache, but you're in the clear.

Cheers,
Wol