Mark Seaborn wrote: > > Should postscript and paper versions be accompanies by an offer to > > supply the source code? > > I would say no. Consider the words of the GNU GPL: ``The source code > for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications > to it.'' [...] > You cannot say that the mudela you distribute must be processable with > Lilypond, because this is an arbitrary restriction. But you also cannot say that a modified version of a GPL'd program must compile with GNU C, or any other specific language. Furthermore, if someone were to rewrite the program natively assembly language, using a text editor, then he would be allowed to distribute this "binary only" app. This might actually happen, say for a very simple web server that runs without an OS and as fast as possible. We could insist that if someone distributes derivative works, he must make the source code to *that work* available. So if he writes his derivation on manuscript paper, then the manuscript will count as the source code and he can distribute photocopies without having to enter the music into a computer. On the other hand, if he creates a derivative which is typeset with Lilypond, or Sibelius, or some other program, then the printed version is not the source code. He would have to make the .ly or .sib file (or equivalent) available. The trick would be finding a legal formulation of this which is at least as watertight as the GPL. The GPL speaks of "The complete *machine-readable* source code, on a medium customarily used for software interchange". We could specify something like this, e.g. : If the work is generated by a machine, then you must [offer to] provide, at a nominal fee, the source code which the machine uses to generate the work. One of the biggest practical advantages Mutopia users will have is the access to the source code. It will let people transpose the music, or print it in different clefs, or in (say) ABC or guitar notation, without having to type it in all over again. If we allow derivative works to be distributed without source code, we are letting distributors deny others the same easy access to the source code that they benefitted from. Regards, David
