Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session

[David Kastrup]

Wols Lists <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

Wrong.  Your duty is to license the whole work you distribute under the
terms of the GPL, with due notices attached and the licensing obvious to
the downstream recipient.  If you fail to do so, you are in violation of
the license you received LilyPond under and can be sued to cease and
desist distribution by one of the original copyright holders.

This is not rocket science.

I am constantly reminded of the time where my ex proofread a philosophy
paper about Plato's cave thingy and told the writer that she thought
that interpretation untenable and asked her whether she had actually
read the text she had been writing about (Schleiermacher has done an
excellent job at translating Plato's dialogues, to the degree that quite
a few other translations are based on Schleiermacher's German rather
than Plato's Greek).  Turns out she hadn't, just texts written _about_
that text.  Not even reading the original is not contributing to
knowledge, "Wissenschaft" or science.

The GPL is short.  There just is no necessity to spread one's ideas what
might or should have been in it instead of actually taking a look.

It's mentioned right in the preamble:

      For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
    gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
    freedoms that you received.  You must make sure that they, too, receive
    or can get the source code.  And you must show them these terms so they
    know their rights.

-- 
David Kastrup