Re: Future of openLilyLib

[Gilles Sadowski]

Hi.

Moving back to the ML; it was not my intention to discuss this
"off-list"; I hope I won't be sued for public disclosure of a private
communication. ;-)

[See quoted text for the two messages that went off-list.]

2020-09-22 12:40 UTC+02:00, Karsten Reincke <k.reincke@fodina.de>:
>
> On 22.09.20 12:17, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> 2020-09-22 11:07 UTC+02:00, Karsten Reincke <k.reincke@fodina.de>:
>>> Dear Carl;
>>>
>>> here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy:
>> Is this what your are aiming at:
>>    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html
>>    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html
>> ?
> Yep, but please keep in mind: I think, tt's not necessary to modify the
> licensing statements of Lilypond itself (the interpreter). The GPL-v3
> seems to be perfect.

Then, I don't understand the rest of the reasoning.[1]

Why do you require a different license for using an *external*
extension (like OpenLilyLib), than for using any of 900+ (".ly"
and ".scm" files bundled with LilyPond) internal ones.

Would it change anything if OpenLilyLib were bundled too (or
downloaded automatically as part of the LilyPond installation
process)?

Regards,
Gilles

[1] IANAL: It would be interesting if you could provide links
to cases where a situation as you described has occurred
(i.e. IIUC a court decision that forced someone to offer his
copyrighted work because it was produced with a copyleft
software).

>> If so, do you confirm that currently you do not use "lilypond" (the
>> software) itself in order to compile music into a score (e.g. PDF)
>> because that exception is *not* mentioned for the software?
>
> No, I do not confirm this. I use Lilypond as probably al the others. I
> write my music scores by using the lilypond language. And I let compile
> my music score into PDF (and midi) files by the Lilypond program.
> Mostly, I use Frescobaldi to edit my music score.
>
> I look at Lilypond at that what it is: a programming language and a
> compiler/interpreter. If you need another analogy: I look at Lilypond
> like I look at php : a programming language and an interpreter.
>
> Now let us switch on the level of Lilypond code (on the level of a php
> program): If a php program includes a lib licensed under the GPL, it has
> to be released under the terms of the GPL too. And so is the
> relationship between Lilypond Music Code and OpenLilyLib.
>
>> If not (and you do use "lilypond"), how is the situation any different
>> with an extension (like OpenLilyLib) from any other extension that
>> is provided when installing LilyPond?
>
> My code does not include any other Library (no include / import
> statement). That'sd the differenct.
>
> If you want to highlight the point, that interpretation of my Lilypond
> code is done by expanding my code by literally replacing my elements by
> 'your' GPL licensed guile scheme code, then indeed we also need an
> exception like the exception for C/C++ include files.
>
>
> with best regards Karsten
>
>
> --
>    Karsten Reincke    /\/\   (+49|0) 170 / 927 78 57
>   Im Braungeröll 31   >oo<  mailto:k.reincke@fodina.de
> 60431 Frankfurt a.M.  \/    http://www.fodina.de/kr/
>
>