Re: Licensing and custom lines

[Carl Sorensen]

 

 

From: lilypond-user <lilypond-user-bounces+carl.d.sorensen=gmail.com@gnu.org> on behalf of Charlie Boilley <boilley.c@outlook.com>
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 1:37 AM
To: "lilypond-user@gnu.org" <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
Subject: Licensing and custom lines

 

Dear Lilypond community,

 

---

1. About GPL licensing, again.

 

Sorry to bother you, but I'm confused by this :

 

"All code linked with GPL 3.0 source code must be disclosed under a GPL 3.0 compatible license." from the GPL license.

 

And this : https://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org/msg136603.html

 

Then, how can be 100% sure that I can keep :

 

- my musical work closed source and share it along the license I wany by using some scripts from other users or built on snippets ?

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2021-10/msg00398.html

 

You have copyright in the music, not in the engraving.  If your copyright were in the engraving, all one would have to do to break your copyright is to re-engrave the music.

 

As long as you distribute only engravings (output from LilyPond), there is no assertion in GPL of a need to release source, as described in my answer to Karsten.  You are free to keep the source used for the engraving closed and share it with nobody.

 

- when sharing scripts with other users ?

 

If you share your own scripts with others, you are free to put them into any license you want.

 

- when dev. creative scripts in or linked to Lily that are part of my composition as "musical objects primitives" : code that will generate Lily code ?

 

Code that will generate LilyPond code is your creation.  You can do whatever you want with it.  You are not required to share the source of your code by the GPL.  You will probably need to avoid distributing it along with LilyPond in order to make it clear that you are not creating a derivative work of LilyPond.

 

How to find solid arguments against :

https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/ ?

 

IMO, the real answer to this question is another question:  How to find solid arguments in favor of Karsten’s post?  If he could provide a single case where the output of a GPL program has been required to be put under the GPL (*any* GPL program, not restricted to LilyPond), then I would consider his arguments valid.  But I have never heard of one, and he provides no citations of the problem.

 

How does GPL apply to LilyPond and derivative works?  It applies to creating works for engraving music, not engraved music works.  If you were to make *and distribute* a  version of LilyPond (call it SuperLily3) that took all of the Guile parts of LilyPond, along with a set of lilypond snippets written in Guile, and convert them all to compiled byte code, and distribute that (as a way to avoid the compiling time in Guile3), then you would be required by the GPL to provide your source code *and* the scripts you use to compile all the Guile bits to byte code and install them in the proper directories to anybody who asked.  Which means that they could then implement them in LilyPond.  But if you were only to make *and never distribute* SuperLily3, you are free to use it however you wish, and the GPL does not require you to share your source.

 

I don’t think worrying about having to share sources for your engraving if you share your engraving is a real issue at all.  I think it’s a made up issue.  But if you are worried about it, you probably shouldn’t use LilyPond.  And you shouldn’t use LibreOffice for writing any text, and you shouldn’t use Inkcsape for making any graphics, and you should probaby stick to the closed-source, commercial software world.  For me, that would be a terrible tradeoff.  Use the best tools available for engraving your music, and don’t worry about hypothetical problems that GPL might impose on your distributions of the output of a program in some hypothetical world.  There’s zero evidence of that happening in the real world.

 

Best wishes,

 

Carl