[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:43:26 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
> To make what I consider an apt analogy, using gcc doesn't require any
> programs you create to be GPL'd.
GCC has a special exception in the licensing exempting the startup stubs
and other fixed material it might place into the code from requiring
licensing. The generated code as such is exempt from requiring a
license anyway.
Similar concerns for LilyPond would hold for library/LSR code bundled
into the PDF file as source (we have an option for that or an issue for
creating such an option). And fonts in extractable forms of embedding.
So it's not a no-brainer, but the concerns voiced by Urs are mostly
incorrect.
--
David Kastrup
Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session, David Kastrup, 2016/10/30