Re: Future of openLilyLib

[Karsten Reincke]

Dear Carl; many thanks for your remarks, You'll find my answers int the text too

On 22.09.20 15:49, Carl Sorensen wrote:

[...]

But here is where you lost me.  The program using guile-aspell must be released under the terms of GPL-v3.  But the output of the program need not be released under the terms of GPL-v3.  The output can be released under any terms the user desires to use.

    guile-aspell is a library which is included into your program, which
    therefore depends on the functionality of the guile-aspel lib

[...]

 

Summary:

If I wrote a piece of music using LilyPond Code (for being interpreted by the Lilypond interpreter) and if I included OpenLilyLib into my code, you as the Copyright owners of OpenLilyLib could me enforce to distribute my work (music'score) under the terms of the GPL simply by using this analogy. By using my explanation, you would win every trial in every legal area which accepted the GPL as an effective license. That's the risk I would have to take, if I used OpenLilyLib to ease my work.

This is false.  The music score is output, not a program.  It is not a derivative work.

It would be a great luck if that was true and if every judge was seen it the same way. Unfortunately, there are reasons, that it is not necessarily true: Lilypond describes itself as a compiler system which takes code and compiles it. Thus, we have the same relationship as between source code (lilypond-code) and binaries (PDFs). Please have a look at GPL-v3 §6 "Conveying Non-Source Forms": "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of [...] " whereby §1 says that '“Object code” means any non-source form of a work'. (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.de.html)

It is totally clear, that the PDF contains the score in form of printer commands and that both, the source and the PDF refer to the same 'music. Hence, from the viewpoint of the GPL text itself, the PDF is not only output, but a derivative work.

The only thing I am asking for is a clarifying statement of the copyright owners, that the copyleft effect of OLL (and Lilypond) does not affect the using code so that these arguments do not work

[...]

5) There would be a simple solution for all, for him, for me, and for the readers of this mailing list: he simply could add an 'including exception' to his licensing statement, which clearly and explicitly says, that including OpenLilyLib does not cause the copyleft effect to the including lilypond code. He would not lose anything: each improvement to OpenLilyLib had to be released under the terms of the GPL v3, too. And - as he might signal by his words in this discussion - the using music code remains private.

[...]

The fact, that Mr. Bernard apparently does not want to realize point 5., puzzles me.

I remain respectfully yours

Karsten Reincke

The inability to recognize the difference between a program and the output of a program puzzles me.

    I like this 'quotation' ;-)

Sincerely,

Carl

Sincerely,

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/