Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2020/05/01 22:19:38, hanwenn wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:58 PM <mailto:address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020/05/01 12:12:40, dak wrote:
> > > That being said, the situation regarding Scorio, a proprietary
entity
> > using Free
> > > Software as a component of delivering a web-based service with
> > non-disclosed
> > > components, is _exactly_ the reason Artifex chose the AGPL as a
basis
> > for their
> > > business model selling commercial Ghostscript licenses.
> >
> > And since there is no (as far as I know) contractual, or even simply
> > practical, obligation tying us to Scorio, this is _also_ exactly why
> > LilyPond itself ought to follow the same way IMO.
> >
> > Relicensing LilyPond as AGPL for the future 2.22 branch (or even 3.0
if
> > that, combined with all current optimization work, may be as good a
> > reason as any for a major version bump) should be on a the table,
even
> > independently of the GhostScript situation. (That goes for many
> > free-software programs actually, which date back from before the
SaaS
> > trend and should now consider switching to AGPL; there even were
some
> > talks of merging AGPL into GPLv4 in the future, though the past few
> > months have put many things on hold.)
> 
> I don't want to relicense LilyPond under the AGPL.
> 
> -- 
> Han-Wen Nienhuys - mailto:address@hidden -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

I am actually with Han-Wen here.  Ultimately, a license should draw the
line you are willing to insist on.  Pursuing GPL breaches is already a
tricky proposition (and essentially only reasonable for significant
copyright holders: the FSF cannot pitch in here since they have no
standing).  Tracking down distributions of LilyPond in a legally
convincing manner is hard enough.  Evidence for running as a service is
just too ephemeral.  I don't want to go there myself.

https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/