Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Karsten Reincke]

On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 09:41 -0700, address@hidden wrote:
> 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

Dear Mason;

before you shoot, you should perhaps carefully read the line of argumentation:

1) I did not refer to the libstdc or anything else for which indeed the gcc
runtime exception can be used. I am talking about the a bit abstract case of 
using
a GPL licensed library or module or snippet as base of ones work compiled by the
GCC to complere the analogy used by other participants of this discussion.

2) Your polemic attack is wrong and unfair. If you had read my posts carefully,
you would know [and probably you know it, but withhold this aspect], that I
offered URS already the opportunity to integrate my coming lib - licensed under
the MIT license - into his OpenLIlyLib. I only refused and refuse to use any GPL
licensed Lilypond snippet as 'module' / 'lib' for my own work.

3) And if you follow the thread thoroughly, you could also have known, that I 
was
asked by Urs to take a look at OpenLilyLib instead of inventing the wheel twice.
To reason why I can't do that is matter of courtesy.

Hence it is complete misleading if you say that I

a) want to enforce Urs to relicense his work
b) do not want to develop my own snippet (I am doing that already)

EOM
KARSTN 

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