On 8 Sep 2009, at 16:51, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Can you please read the GNU GPL before spreading too much nonsense?
It is not about the GPL, but the WIPO copyright treaty, and copyright
law. The GPL cannot override that.
gs is GPL v3+, so anything that links to it has to be compatible to
GPL v3.
The GPL 3.0 now contains the following quote. It looks to me as saying
that for linking, the interface must be made public, but does not say
anything about the program itself. Read yourself to see if you agree
with my interpretation. I brought up this point with RMS - the things
is that copyright roughly speaking protects the distribution of the
parts that are humanly creatively unique (suggested by the Beastie
flute sample case). But it is not possible for one copyright license
to interfere with another copyright ownership.
----
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.
----
Lilypond doesn't link, but simply call it, so there's no restriction
here.
That is what I say: the form is looser, so it should be less
complicated and controversial.
The WIPO copyright treaty says that programs are protected as literary
works in the sense od the Berne convention. So think about books. So
this situation is more like a bookstore wanting to sell a book package.
However, as the installer also bundles gs, the provisions about
distributing
copies of gs found in the GPL v3 have to be fulfilled. Section "6.
Conveying
Non-Source Forms." is about distributing compiled versions, but I
don't see
any further restrictions there (source code available, etc, of
course).
So, what's the problem here?
Yes, this is what I also said. In your redistribution, you must make
sure that you fulfill the copyright conditions, in as much as they do
not abrogate local copyright law, of the individual packages.
If GPL was able to impose conditions of other software components,
then it would not be possible to distribute GPL'd Bison with BSD'd
Flex, and not would Mac OS X be possible, which contains many GPL'd
components along with some which actually are closed source.
Hans
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
