Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Alexander Kobel]

On 04/02/2013 06:51 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 11:38 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
> > [...]
> > 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".

That actually makes sense to me, since...

On 04/02/2013 10:21 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> But I'm not talking about copying.  I'm talking about the right to use.

I think I did not recognize this at the first glance.

So, to my understanding this would mean that if I write, say, your 
GSL-using application, I'm free to distribute the source "my-app.C" 
under whatever terms I want to, since it does not include any GSL code. 
 So let's assume I don't choose a GPL-compatible license.
Then, everybody is free to use "my-app.C" constraint to my terms, since 
they are imposed on this very file.  However, nobody would be allowed to 
use /GSL/ to compile this program, because GPL considers "my-app.C" a 
covered work /whenever used with a GPL'ed implementation/ of the GSL 
api.  So in essence, the source is useless for purposes other than code 
study to anyone but me, since I am the only one free to re-license my 
own creation under a different license (even without explicitly stating 
it).  People will compile the program with GSL, of course, but 
technically they are not allowed to do so - but not because I did wrong 
and shipped "my-app.C" under an "illegal" license (which I didn't), but 
rather because GPL forbids use of the GPL'ed with a non-GPL'ed part.

Of course, as soon as I ship parts of GSL with it (in either source or 
derived form, say compiled in or linked), the GPL not only denies *use* 
but requires me to distribute the whole thing under GPL (or compatible).

That's would be a much more restrictive objective of the GPL than I 
thought, but I think this interpretation is legally sound and valid:  If 
the GSL people provide their work to anybody, they should indeed have 
the right to tell this anybody under what constraints he may use it. 
Including "don't use with non-GPL'ed stuff."


Still, I agree that a more trustworthy source for the interpretation is 
required.  And I hope it turns out that the above situation is actually 
not true...


Best,
Alexander