Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[mason]

On 10/30, Karsten Reincke wrote:
> Here, the analogy of gcc and Lilypond matches perfectly: As we are
> must distribute binaries which are compiled by the gcc on the base a
> GPL licensed source code, we must also distribute the binaries (png)
> which are compiled by LilyPond on the base of a GPL licensed LilyPond
> score description. It is exactly the same case.

The rational for the GCC exception is "These libraries are automatically
used by the object code that GCC produces. Because of that, if these
libraries were simply distributed only under the terms of the GPL, all
the object code that GCC produces would have to be distributed under the
same terms."[1]

This does not apply here.  A pdf generated by Lilypond does not
automatically use any snippets of Lilypond code.  A pdf reader can't
even do anything with Lilypond code.  You can distribute the pdf under
any license you want.  The GPL only comes into play if you distribute
your Lilypond code.

All of this is beside the point, though.  The library that started this
discussion (analysis) is for "graphical highlighting of musical
analysis,"  which is probably not something you need in order to engrave
and publish your music.  It seems more likely that the purpose behind
this FUD about the GPL is to put pressure on Urs to relicense of
analysis so that you can use it in harmonyli without having to comply
with the GPL.

On 10/30, Karsten Reincke wrote:
> RMS has invented the LGPL to ensure that free code stays free. (weak
> copyleft effect).

RMS intends the LGPL for libraries that do not provide any practical
advantages over existing non-GPL'd alternatives.[2]  The fact that you
are complaining about the license instead of using a different library
indicates that the license was probably chosen correctly.

On 10/30, Karsten Reincke wrote:
> I regret to be the messenger of bad news. But there is a simple
> solution: Don't use GPL licensed LilyPond snippets, if wou want to
> keep you rights. And perhaps convince the OpenLilyLib developers to
> relicense their work.

There it is.

Mason

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html

[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature