Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/30/19, 3:17 PM, "Hans Åberg" <address@hidden> wrote:

    
    > On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
    > 
    >>    The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other 
licenses, I believe, because the processed part remains in the output, and thus 
copyrightable. Thus, they play the same role as the Bison skeleton file and GCC 
libraries.
    > 
    > What processed part remains in the output?
    
    The part of them that one includes in ones own code, if large enough to be 
copyrightable. If you just look at them and write something else, it does not 
matter.
    
    
How so?  When I wrote fret-diagram code, and before it was accepted in the 
distribution, it could be contained in an included .ly file.

When the fret-diagram code was executed, no part of that code ended up in the 
resulting PDF or PNG files.  The fret-diagram code created ink at specified 
locations; but the specified locations were not part of the code I wrote.  
Instead they were generated by the interaction of the main lilypond 
distribution with the music input I wrote.  And the result was printed music 
that matched my intent.  If  the music was original, the copyright was mine.  
If I was transcribing music from another composer, the copyright remained with 
the composer.

The GPL had no influence on the copyright of the printed music.

Carl