Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 04/02/2013 11:38 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
> On 02/04/2013 22:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> (Function names and APIs are generally considered to be uncopyrightable.)
>> However, I think the consensus of opinion about free software licensing would
>> be that, in distributing to you this little program, purely in source code
>> form, not compiled or linked in any way, I am still obliged to offer it to 
>> you
>> under licensing terms that are GPL-compatible, or else lose my right to use
>> the GNU Scientific Library.
> 
> You've just answered your own question. You have just said that this program
> does NOT contain ANY copyrighted content from the gsl.
> 
> As such, it is not a derivative work. That's what the law says. If the gsl
> people want to stop you using their library, they need the law on their side.

My right to use the GNU Scientific Library is conditional on following certain
obligations -- if I breach those obligations, I lose the right to use the GNU
Scientific Library.  One such obligation relates to the licensing that must be
applied if I distribute any work that matches the GPL definition of a "covered
work".

It's no different in principle from what happens if I breach the terms of use of
a proprietary program.  My right to use the Flash plugin, for example, is
conditional among other things upon my not trying to reverse-engineer it.

Of course, in the case of the GNU Scientific Library, one way I could avoid
violating the license would be to prepare a clean-room re-implementation of the
library for use with my program.  But in the absence of such a
re-implementation, I think I'd reasonably be held in violation.