[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GOP-PROP 2-1: LilyPond is part of GNU

From: @tiredpixel
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 2-1: LilyPond is part of GNU
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:39:18 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1

On 05/07/12 00:13, Graham Percival wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
On 2012-06-20 05:51, Graham Percival wrote:
  "do not recommend any non-Free programs"
  >  We have a list of non-free ones on the easier editing page
- e.g.
  Noteworthy and my converter.  However, it seems daft to me to remove
  these.  I would think for the long list we could disclaim with
  "we're not recommending these, but noting that they exist".
Thanks, that seems reasonable.

Actually, to me there is a big difference between "recommending" a
program for use and listing alternatives that are compatible (which
is the case for the applications in question). I actually don't like
the phrasing, because I understand "we're not recommending these" as
a nice formulation of "We strongly discourage you from using these".

Sorry, I don't think we can even have a "we're not recommending
these, but noting that they exist" list.  I've discovered the GNU
coding standards, and they're pretty clear:

"A GNU program should not recommend, promote, or grant legitimacy
to the use of any non-free program. Proprietary software is a
social and ethical problem, and our aim is to put an end to that
problem. We can’t stop some people from writing proprietary
programs, or stop other people from using them, but we can and
should refuse to advertise them to new potential customers, or to
give the public the idea that their existence is ethical."

Taking the spirit of that paragraph (as well as other language in
that section), I don't think we can list such software at all.

- Graham

lilypond-devel mailing list

Greetings. :)

Do you happen to know the GNU stance on 'recommending' software
licensed under a 'free' license (as defined by, but not GNU? For instance,
would LilyPond be able to embrace software licensed under MIT? I'm
aware that MIT is 'GNU-compatible' - but this is not the issue, here,
so far as I understand it; the issue under discussion being one of
referencing/'recommending', rather than the licensing of the software


reply via email to

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