Re: Future of openLilyLib

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <carl.d.sorensen@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:00 PM Karsten Reincke <k.reincke@fodina.de> wrote
> <snip>
>
>>
>> We had this discussion a year ago and I won't repeat the details. The
>> last time it ended in a kind of unfruitful shitstorm which did not
>> help anyone. But if you now look for supporters, you have to see that
>> your license model reduces the list of candidates: They must be
>> familiar with music, they must love beautifully designed musical
>> text, they must be able to program scheme (LISP) code (in fact not
>> the most widely used programming language) and they must be willing
>> to require the others to distribute their music under the terms of
>> the GPL.
>>
>
> What is special about OpenLilyLib that requires LilyPond music to be
> released under the GPL, when music not using OpenLilyLib does not need
> to be released under the GPL?  How does OpenLilyLib change the type of
> license required for the PDF file generated by LilyPond?

It doesn't.  But if you copy OLL code into source code of yours (not via
its interfaces, but by copying actual code), for example because you
want to pin down a particular version of OLL code, this source code and
its derivatives (presumably including the generated PDF) can only be
distributed under the GPL.

That's not the intended way of using OLL, of course.

-- 
David Kastrup