Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Urs Liska]

Am 30. Oktober 2019 12:45:06 MEZ schrieb Karsten Reincke <address@hidden>:
>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.)
>

openLilyLib may be awfully underdocumented, but there are usage examples all 
over the place, really. I think every package or module has an example next to 
it or a usage-wxamples directory...


>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

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.