Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Urs Liska]

Hi Karsten,

first of all let me comment on your final stance: yes, I think you have 
answered respectfully, appreciatively and clearly. And I have also read 
your longer post. But I think there is one single flawed thought you 
build your argumentation on. I'll leave most of your statements alone 
and basically comment only on that one:

Am 30.10.19 um 00:06 schrieb 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.


Correct.


> [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.


Well, sort-of ...


> [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.


... of course it does.
What you are referring to is the relation of software distributed in 
source code or binary/compiled form. But as you outlined before using 
LilyPond (like with all other comparable tools like e.g. LaTeX) does not 
have any implications on *what* you do with it. The intellectual 
property to the *documents* is not affected by the license the compiler 
is distributed with.

If there is a snippet or an openLilyLib package that creates a certain 
sign, let's say a vertical line to indicate a line break in the original 
source (\diplomaticLineBreak in an openLilyLib package) and that package 
is licensed with the GPL then the function is essentially licensed 
identically as any function within the regular LilyPond distribution.

Consider the function \IJ. This is defined in a file gregorian.ly within 
the LilyPond distribution. In order to use \IJ your document has to 
actively \include "gregorian.ly". gregorian.ly is licensed under the 
GPL, but that does *not* require you to license the *music* (or other 
kind of artistic/scientific "work") under the GPL as well. Basically 
*any* use of LilyPond uses function calls into GPLed code, and in that 
sense code within openLilyLib is part of the compiler domain like 
LilyPond, and not part of the document domain where it would affect the 
work you do with it.

However, if you are building a library that uses \IJ and you want to 
distribute your libary *that* triggers the copyleft implications of the 
original file's GPL.
The same is true (and that's probably a practically realistic example) 
if you write a custom openLilyLib package (by including 
oll-core/package.ily) and want to distribute that package you'd be bound 
by the relicensing provisions of the GPL. Still, that doesn't affect the 
artistic or scientific works created *using* the package in any way.

Given the \diplomaticLineBreak above using the function does not put any 
burden on you. OTOH your *scholarly decision* to apply a diplomatic line 
break may be a copyrightable decision in its own right.

Another example: If you use a GPLed document editor that provides the 
ability to use/apply macros, and there is an option to use custom macros 
which may stem from a GPLed macro repository. Such macros might (for 
example) be used to apply a certain styling to a certain type of 
content, e.g. tables. Or a macro to create custom diagrams in a 
spreadsheet application. Or a macro to automate the conversion of 
currencies. Would you argue that the use of such macros requires you to 
give away the intellectual property on the research visualized in that 
table (well, and on all the content of that document)?

Urs


> [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