Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Karsten Reincke]

On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 00:55 +0000, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 10/29/19, 5:46 PM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>     Karsten Reincke <address@hidden> wrotes:
>     
>    [...]
>     >
>     > [4] But if a GPL licensed LilyPond snippet is used by another LilyPond
>     > code (either by a functional call into the included snippet or by
>     > literally copying the snippet into the other code), then the copyleft
>     > effect of the GPL is triggered.
>     >
>     [...]
>     
>     I disagree with your assessment that calling any code/function makes the
>     work doing so a derivative of that code (that would concern using
>     OpenLilyLib code).  I do agree that including/using/changing LSR
>     snippets as part of your work means deriving from them.  That's why I
>     would agree that using the GPL for the LSR snippets would not be
>     desirable since it would introduce a licensing regime where it seems
>     exaggerated.
> 
> I agree with this comment only to the extent that you are distributing the
> source code for your music.  If you only distribute the PDF and/or MIDI 
> output,
> the GPL does not apply, according to the FSF:
> 
> " In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?
> (#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL)
> The output of a program is not, in general, covered by the copyright on the 
> code
> of the program. So the license of the code of the program does not apply to 
> the
> output, whether you pipe it into a file, make a screenshot, screencast, or
> video.

Many thanks for your comment. It contains an important hint. BUt it is a bit 
apart
from my crucial point: 

I am not arguing that my LilyPond work (or a snippet) is covered by the GPL
because it is 'executed' by LilyPond. I argue that my code is covered by the GPL
if I use (include or copy) a GPL licensed snippet. And if it is covered, then in
accordance to the GPL §6 (title: "Conveying Non-Source Forms") also the compiled
version is covered by the GPL. (BTW: even a picture is binary code which is
interpreted)

Nevertheless, I would be happy if the statement you quoted would be judically
approved! But as long as we do not have such a legal descision there is a great
risk that my scientific and artistical music work can freely be used due to the
fact that I used a GPL licensed snippet for ceating the music scores - a risk,
which I don't want to take.

But even if I agreed with your position, then we both still have to conlude, 
that
we can only distribute / hand over our LilyPond code under the terms of the GPL,
if our code used a GPL licensed snippet. And even this is a strong side effect.

with best regards Karsten

 


> Carl Sorensen
> 
> 1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL
> 
>     
> 
-- 
  Karsten Reincke    /\/\   (+49|0) 170 / 927 78 57
 Im Braungeröll 31   >oo<  mailto:address@hidden
60431 Frankfurt a.M.  \/    http://www.fodina.de/kr/