Once for all and one last time (was Future of openLilyLib)

[Karsten Reincke]

Dear ML members;

The thread becomes longer and longer. Hence I am going to summarize my 
concerns and won't repeat myself never again:

1) In the beginning, there was the ask of Urs to be supported by 
developing OLL because he wants to reduce his efforts. For making OLL a 
little more welcoming, I proposed either to re-license OLL under the 
LGPL or to add something like an 'include exception' (for getting the 
similar protection just as the GPL with classpath exception did for Java 
developers using OpenJDK). Additionally, I suggested to become a 
contributor if and when such a clarification has been realized. This 
proposal seems to be rejected. Hence I withdraw my offer.

2) Most of you who see my concerns as ridiculous have in mind, that the 
PDF created by Lilypond is only the output, not another form of the 
Lilypond code, just as the letter written for aunt Tilly is not covered 
by the word processor.

Here I clearly disagree: Lilypond describes itself as a compiler taking 
text written in the LilyPond programming language and compiling this 
text as PDF and/or as midi file. (https://lilypond.org/text-input.html). 
Thus, it does not meet the structure of writing a letter to aunt Tilly. 
The GPL-v3 itself defines, that 'the “source code” for a work means the 
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” 
means any non-source form of a work.' §1 
(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html) A pdf file contains printer 
commands to visualize music. It is a text file too. Thus, one could at 
least argue that the PDF file is the object code of the lilypond source 
code.

Hence, it is not inherently and intuitively clear, that the PDF is the 
autonomous output and has nothing to do with the input of the compiler 
'Lilypond'.

3) If lilypond-code is source-code of a programming language and if it 
can include/use other code licensed under a strong copyleft license then 
it has to be distributed under the same terms, even if it is distributed 
in form of object code (§6 GPL-v3) The relationship between the lilypond 
code of a piece of music and the code being included / used for 
compiling it is the same as the relationship between java code and for 
example the openjdk library: Writing a java program becomes more easy 
for me, because I can use the preliminary work of those programmers, who 
implemented hashes, arrays, etc into the OpenJDK lib. OpenJDK is 
licensed under GHPL-v3. But for not enforcing the using code to be 
licensed under the GPL too, openjdk is released under the GPL with 
classpath exception. This can simply transferred to OLL: I could more 
easily write my lilypond music code, because I could use the preliminary 
OLL work of Urs etc. Unfortunately, OLL does not offer such an 
exception. Hence I have to accept, that my music code (sic!) has to be 
distributed under the terms of the GPL-v3 too, because OLL is licensed 
under the GPL.

4) Point 2 and 3 together can be used to argue, that also a distributed 
pdf file compiled by lilypond has also to be licensed under the GPL.

5) I've learned, that all(?) of you consider this an untenable if not 
silly position and that the PDFs and midi-files compiled by Lilypond are 
never affected by the strong copyleft effect of the GPL. That's good to 
hear. But I don't understand, why - under this circumstances - it should 
be garbage to add a respective clarifying statement (the 'include 
clause' or however you want to name it), if it is at least partially 
conceivable that such a position will be taken and if all of you do not 
want to use / establish its consequences. But that's my problem.

6) For the future
- I won't come back to you with this issue
- I unfortunately cannot work on the further development of the OLL
- I won't use OLL to minimize my risk
- I will use Lilypond ...
  - but I won't distribute my essential work in form of lilypond code
  - and reduce its distribution in form of PDFs to an absolute minimum 
for minimizing my risk.

And as far as I understood you correctly, none of you will try to force 
me to publish it under the terms of the GPL. That's also good to hear. 
Overall, that's not the best result we could get, but it is a result.

With best wishes and sincere thanks for the wonderful Lilypond Composer 
environment

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/