[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New version of articulate available

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: New version of articulate available
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:24:42 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Francisco Vila <address@hidden> writes:

> 2011/3/20 Peter Chubb <address@hidden>:
>> On 20/03/2011, at 7:55 PM, Francisco Vila <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> I've not checked, but is the license compatible with that of lilypond?
>>> A simple line stating "this file has the same license as the lilypond
>>> package" would serve.
>> It's released under GPL version 2.0
>> Its copyright is held by myself and by my employer, NICTA, who
>> reserve the right to release it under other licences at other times,
>> and who wish the notice of copyright in the file to be retained.
> I am not an expert and can not decide if we can include it given that
> discrepancy.

Not likely to work well.  It is not even clear that Peter can
release/distribute it under GPL version 2.0 unless it will work
unmodified with a version of Lilypond released under GPL version 2.0.
If it doesn't, the question is whether it counts as being a derivative
of Lilypond.

If Peter and/or his employer can't be persuaded to release this as GPL3+
(which does not touch their right to release and distribute it, in
parallel, under any license they want to unless the code depends on the
work of others), I strongly suggest not distributing it with the rest of
Lilypond since any "crosspollination", namely people using the code, its
structure, documentation and whatever else will constitute a licensing
violation of Peter's and his empoyer's licensing choice.

Since that is an accident waiting to happen even if inclusion of could conceivably count as "mere aggregation", we need to
steer clear.

Any other GPLvx.0 only (where x includes 3) bombs waiting to happen in
the Lilypond code base?

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]