On Sep 22, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Karsten Reincke <k.reincke@fodina.de> wrote:
On 22.09.20 14:58, Tim McNamara wrote:
Dear Carl; here is my explanation using the method of showing an
analogy:
<snip>
If I use Emacs to write a letter to my Aunt Tillie, even
though Emacs is licensed under the GPL my letter to Aunt Tillie
remains copyrighted and private. [...]
Unfortunately, you are mixing the levels of licensings here: If you wrote a letter to aunt Tilly which included a sentence
provided by my famous text library to write wonderful letters to
aunt Tilli (if such a lib really existed, I of course would have
licensed it under the GPL!) and if you therefore had not to type
the complete text by yourself, THEN your letter would have to be
distributed under the terms of the GPL too - not because, you used
the emacs, but because you included parts of my GPL licensed
letter lib and the copyleft effect it established. That's point here: If I included the OLL into my musical work by
using the compiler option lilypond -I ./oll my-score.ly, the my
work depends on OLL, not because I use lilypond, but because I
functions of the OLL.
Dear Karsten-
And, again, I must disagree. A differentiation exists between the GPL software and input/output files used with/resulting from the operation of the software. Neither your .ly or .ily file nor the various output options produced by Lilypond are required to be released under the GPL or its variants. Such a requirement would just be silly and would result in the termination of the use of free software everywhere, practically overnight. Your input may include Scheme or other code to customize the performance of Lilypond for your specific purposes, but that is part of your input file and is not part of Lilypond or openlilylib and thus not subject to GPL or other such licenses. Copywrite, performance rights, etc., would apply consistent with your local laws.
This is the sort of attack that the GPL and free software has
been subjected to multiple times over decades. It has all been
seen and resolved before.
It is regrettable that the same methods are used
here that the free software community has had to experience for
so long, namely personal discrediting as an "argument" in posts
without any salutation and any greetings. Nevertheless,
there is ever a way to come back to the free and respectful
discussion.
I apologize for being an American and just getting to the point. It’s how we do things and in this culture is not usually considered rude in non-socializing settings. I recognize that YMMV and in other cultures our style is considered rude.
It may not be your intent, but your argumentation reads like an attack on free software via Lilypond/openlilylib in particular. You seem to be seeing obstacles that in practical senses do not exist. Can you identify any cases in which what you are describing has happened in any enforceable manner? Hypotheticals can be informative but rarely if ever definitive.
What you are describing has been discussed many times before, in several venues in which I have had slight involvement, and has been settled time and again. I have even committed the error I see in your writing. Software development under the GPL has requirements that are not applied to the input or output of that software in use cases.
|