Re: License of code posted to this list

[Urs Liska]

Am 09.05.2015 um 23:06 schrieb David Bellows:
> > I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the 
> > list is by default with the author and has no license by itself. So I think you 
> > can't assume it's PD.
>
> This sounds correct as well. Does just making the code available to
> the world in a public manner imply anything about it being OK to use
> it in another project? I don't know the answer to that and thus these
> questions. But you are correct, I'm betting, that the author does
> automatically own the copyright to the code (at least in the US).
>
> Should there be some kind of agreement that everyone signs off on when
> subscribing to the mail list concerning any code they might
> contribute?

I *think* I've read an agreement somewhere that explicitly states what I 
wrote before, so if that's true we explicitly have no PD on the list.

> And is the line that David added sufficient?:
>
> > I'm more than happy to let you use the "auto-ottava" code for your
> > project.  By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody
> > who sees utility in it.

I would say you can take this as a sufficient "license agreement" that 
overrides the general list rules ;-)

Urs

> Dave
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Am 9. Mai 2015 22:55:32 MESZ, schrieb David Bellows <address@hidden>:
> > > > Sorry about not contacting you sooner!
> > >
> > > It's perfectly OK! I'm sure I'm just way over-thinking the issue!
> > >
> > > > I'm more than happy to let you use the "auto-ottava" code for your
> > > project.  By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody
> > > who sees utility in it.
> > >
> > > I think that probably works. I can just add that to the top of the
> > > file.
> >
> > I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the 
> > list is by default with the author and has
> >
> > Ursno license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD.
> >
> > > > My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that,
> > > should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code
> > > base in the future, there would be no complication.
> > >
> > > Lilypond uses the GPL and can make use of code licensed to the public
> > > domain (anyone can use public domain code with any license for any
> > > purpose). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGovAdd I
> > > think applies.
> > >
> > > > You mention that your software is Affero GPL.  Would this conflict in
> > > any way with LilyPond's license?
> > >
> > > Nope. In fact version 3 of the GPL (the version that Lilypond uses)
> > > specifically mentions that it can be used with stuff licensed with the
> > > Affero GPL. The "Affero" clause was intended to close a potential
> > > loophole concerning web applications and otherwise uses the exact same
> > > wording as the GPL and is maintained by the FSF
> > > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html).
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, David Nalesnik
> > > <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > Hi David.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, David Bellows <address@hidden>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Hello all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a big coding project that generates Lilypond files to be
> > > > > processed by Lilypond in an external process. My software is GPL. I
> > > > > make use of a couple of scripts that were produced on this list but
> > > > > have not been uploaded to the LSR. They are significant enough that
> > > I
> > > > > would consider them of concern when thinking about licensing issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've contacted the authors in each of these cases asking them to add
> > > > > license information to these scripts but so far I haven't heard back
> > > > > from them.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, that's how these things go, but since things like this can come
> > > up
> > > > > again I was wondering if anyone has a knowledgeable opinion on the
> > > > > state of code posted to a mail list like this? Is it automatically
> > > > > public domain and so I don't need any additional licensing from the
> > > > > original authors?
> > > > >
> > > > > Does it make a difference if the scripts were derived from code from
> > > the
> > > > > LSR?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry about not contacting you sooner!
> > > >
> > > > I'm more than happy to let you use the "auto-ottava" code for your
> > > project.
> > > > By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees
> > > utility
> > > > in it.
> > > >
> > > > My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that,
> > > should I
> > > > or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in
> > > the
> > > > future, there would be no complication.
> > > >
> > > > You mention that your software is Affero GPL.  Would this conflict in
> > > any
> > > > way with LilyPond's license?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > David
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > lilypond-user mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


--
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org