Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Karsten Reincke]

Dear Elaine
 
On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 18:13 -0700, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote:
> [...]
> It seems you think that, if you use code from the LSR as part of your input
> files, that you are obligated to distribute both the input files and the
> resulting PDF/MIDI files under the GPL.
YES, if the LSR snippet was licensed under the GPL (In fact, the LSR snippets 
are
not licensed under the GPL, they are Public Domain, I know!)
> 

> One thing you state is clearly incorrect:  "snippets are either linked into 
> the
> main code using the command #include “ABC.ly”..."   No, this is actually part 
> of
> the reason why the openlilylib is structured the way it is, since the LSR is
> explicitly NOT a library or set of libraries, and many people find that
> annoying.  openlilylib was started (as I understand it) by people who do want 
> a
> libary-based approach, since the LSR approach encourages lots of duplication.

I cannot say anything about the methods of OpenLilyLib - because I did not find
any 'Hello World' example which I could compile on my machine (Ubuntu 19.10).
(This is another topic, which I want to ignore in this context.)

But at least without beside using OpenLilyLib you have to methods to use the LSR
snippets: either you save the snippet in your file tree and insert an include
directive into your code which takes the path to that file as an argument. Or 
you
copy the snippet literally and directly into your code.


> So, here we have the solution to your dilemma: don't copy them.  

Yeep, that's what I will do: as long as I am afraid to lose not only my LilyPond
code (which I do not care), but the rights of my using scientific / musical 
work,
I won't use any snippet which is license und er GPl. All other snippets are ok.
And the LSR is a great help.

> [...] Besides the debate about the letter of the law, then there is the 
> reality
> check part.  
> 
> Which is to say, you seem to think that someone who voluntarily submitted
> content to the LSR as "public domain" is going to turn around and state that,
> because that language is either inaccurate, or does not hold relevance in 
> their
> legal domain, they will take you to court to force you to comply with the 
> terms
> and distribute both your input files and resulting PDFs, or desist in
> distributing the work.  
Yes and No. 

No, because I do not believe, that contributors to the LSR, later on, change 
their
mind or want to attack us due to an infringement based on the weakness of a 
local
legal system (But can we really be sure? Do you know that we have a lot of  
patent
trolls and meanwhile also GPL trolls, who invented a business model on suing 
users
because of a non-compliant use of a GPL licensed program?)

And yes, because I believe in good systems. And if we minimize the weakness of a
system, then we should do that. The weakness of the LSR is, that Europe does not
know the idea of 'public domain' (based on the principle, that you first have to
claim your copyrights before you grant any rights). In Europe, nearly every work
has a copyright owner. Hence every snippet contributed by a European citizen
legally is not correctly contributed. This could be healed by using the CC0: It
also talks about the public domain, but it explicitly grants all rights to the
users without requiring any service in return.

Best regards Karsten