[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New version of articulate available
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: New version of articulate available |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:00:32 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:46:21AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Peter Chubb <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > I'll do it if I have to to get it merged, but i was hoping it wouldn't
> > be necessary.
>
> The GPLv3 states under 5 "Conveying modified source versions"
I don't see articulate.ly as a modified source version, unless I
misunderstand that term.
> c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
> License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
> License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
> additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
> regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
> permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
> invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
To clarify, this only refers to something called "modofied source
version", right? I mean, the docs are under GPL FDL 1.3+; this
paragraph doesn't somehow require that the docs are placed under
GPLv3, right?
> > Graham> Isn't that precisely the question? You wrote: "It is not even
> > Graham> clear that Peter can release/distribute it under GPL version
> > Graham> 2.0 unless it will work unmodified with a version of Lilypond
> > Graham> released under GPL version 2.0"
> >
> > It will so work. It was written to use the public interfaces provided
> > by version 2.12, which is GPL version 2.0.
>
> If it is written using _public_ interfaces, it can be reasonably
> considered an independent work and distributed separately.
As I claim.
> But making
> it an _integral_ part of Lilypond will not be feasible.
You're talking about moving the code into a C++ performer, right?
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about putting it in ly/,
as an optional include. That's not "integral".
> And if you think this kind of nonsense is stifling industry and
> innovation rather than furthering it, don't tell me.
I think this is nonsense, not because of the copyright law
(although that certainly *is* nonsense!), but because as far as I
can see, articulate.ly only uses public interfaces[1], is not an
integral part of lilypond, and thus all these concerns are not
valid.
[1] with that slight quibble about the 4-6 lines of scheme code
that he copied from FeatherDurations or whatever, which I believe
isn't even called at the moment. Those should be removed or
rewritten.
> That's preaching to the choir. Tell your congressman.
Neither Peter nor I have congressmen.
Cheers,
- Graham
- Re: New version of articulate available, (continued)
- Re: New version of articulate available, Xavier Scheuer, 2011/03/20
- Re: New version of articulate available, Peter Chubb, 2011/03/20
- Re: New version of articulate available, Francisco Vila, 2011/03/20
- Re: New version of articulate available, David Kastrup, 2011/03/20
- Re: New version of articulate available, Graham Percival, 2011/03/20
- Re: New version of articulate available, David Kastrup, 2011/03/20
- Re: New version of articulate available, Graham Percival, 2011/03/20
- Re: New version of articulate available, Peter Chubb, 2011/03/20
- Re: New version of articulate available, David Kastrup, 2011/03/21
- Re: New version of articulate available, Colin Campbell, 2011/03/21
- Re: New version of articulate available,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: New version of articulate available, David Kastrup, 2011/03/22
- Re: New version of articulate available, Peter Chubb, 2011/03/22
- Re: New version of articulate available, David Kastrup, 2011/03/22
- Re: New version of articulate available, Graham Percival, 2011/03/22
- Re: New version of articulate available, Peter Chubb, 2011/03/28
- Re: New version of articulate available, Francisco Vila, 2011/03/29
- Re: New version of articulate available, Carl Sorensen, 2011/03/20