Re: Future of openLilyLib

[Karsten Reincke]

On 22.09.20 14:58, Tim McNamara wrote:

On Sep 22, 2020, at 4:30 AM, Karsten Reincke <k.reincke@fodina.de> wrote:

Dear Carl;

here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy:

<snip>

 If I use Emacs to write a letter to my Aunt Tillie, even though Emacs is licensed under the GPL my letter to Aunt Tillie remains copyrighted and private. [...]

Unfortunately, you are mixing the levels of licensings here:

If you wrote a letter to aunt Tilly which included a sentence provided by my famous text library to write wonderful letters to aunt Tilli (if such a lib really existed, I of course would have licensed it under the GPL!) and if you therefore had not to type the complete text by yourself, THEN your letter would have to be distributed under the terms of the GPL too - not because, you used the emacs, but because you included parts of my GPL licensed letter lib and the copyleft effect it established.

That's point here: If I included the OLL into my musical work by using the compiler option lilypond -I ./oll my-score.ly, the my work depends on OLL, not because I use lilypond, but because I functions of the OLL.

This is the sort of attack that the GPL and free software has been subjected to multiple times over decades. It has all been seen and resolved before.

It is regrettable that the same methods are used here that the free software community has had to experience for so long, namely personal discrediting as an "argument" in posts without any salutation and any greetings. Nevertheless, there is ever a way to come back to the free and respectful discussion.

KR

-- 
  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/