LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Karsten Reincke]

By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
to the original topic. During this discussion Harm stated, that „maybe
LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one (Public Domain)“.
Urs asked whether anything has to be done with respect to the Lilypond
Snippet Repository. And Andrew asked whether I apprehend not to be able
to use lilypond due to the fact that it is licensed under the GPL.

I owned these comments by my statement, that I will not be able to use
and to support the development of LilyPond snippets or libraries (as
OpenLilyLIb) as long as they are licensed under the GPL. Meanwhile, I
have written a thorough analysis of the situation. It is published
under the title „LilyPond, LilyPond Snippets and GPL: About some bad
side effects“. https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/

For those, who do not want to read such an exhaustive document – I need
this depth of detail due to my work as the open-source compliance
officer of a Germany company – let me briefly summarize the line of
argumentation:

[1] The LilyPond language (interpreted by the LilyPond program which
creates nice music sheets in the form of PDFs or PNGs) is a programming
language.

[2] The LilyPond interpreter is licensed under the GPL.

[3] None of the existing Lilypond snippets is licensed under the GPL
because the interpreter is licensed under the GPL (= no copyleft effect
from the engine to its input/output). If they are licensed under the
GPL, then it is a decision of the snippet authors, who also could have
chosen one of the other open-source licenses.

[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.

[5] The copyleft effect does not distinguish between distributing the
source (the LilyPond code) or the compilation (the PDFs, the PNGs): it
simply requires that the resulting work (the derivative work) has to be
distributed (published) under the terms of the GPL too.

[6] If one has the right to use, to inspect, to modify and to
redistribute (share) the (modified) work to/with third persons, then –
in case of music – one has also the right to make music by using the
music scores.

(If you doubt these statements, please read 
https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/ )

Hence, now I reached the bad result: Using a GPL licensed LilyPond
snippet for creating your own music – regardless, whether you use the
include- or the copy & paste method – evokes that everyone who gets
your work in any form also and inherently gets the right to use it –
for any purpose and without having to ask you again. In other words: by
using any GPL licensed snippet you give away all your rights, even your
artistic rights.

I hope you understand why I cannot let automatically become my
scientific or my musical work common property only because I use one
GPL licensed LilyPond snippet for creating the sheet music of my
examples or my musical work.

In my article, I also analyze the alternatives. The result is this: The
best method is to license your work under the MIT license. The worse,
but possible solution is, to use a creative commons license, especially
the CC0 license.

With respect to the question of Urs, I can now say: The existing LSR
snippets can only be relicensed by the original copyright owners. But
for the next uploaded files, it could be helpful, to recommend (or
enforce?) their authors to license them under the CC0.

And with respect to your OpenLilyLib, I, unfortunately, have to say
this: I hope that you can conclude why I am not able to develop my
snippet ‚harmonily‘ as part of your framework. But I will license it
under the terms of the MIT. That allows you, to integrate the code into
your work (But only, if you preserve the MIT license which is part of
the code. You will not be allowed to relicense my code – which should
not disturb your work and goals).

In the hope having answered respectfully, appreciatively and clearly
Karsten


-- 
  Karsten Reincke    /\/\   (+49|0) 170 / 927 78 57
 Im Braungeröll 31   >oo<  mailto:address@hidden
60431 Frankfurt a.M.  \/    http://www.fodina.de/kr/