Am 9. Mai 2015 22:55:32 MESZ, schrieb David Bellows <davebell...@gmail.com>: >> Sorry about not contacting you sooner! > >It's perfectly OK! I'm sure I'm just way over-thinking the issue! > >> I'm more than happy to let you use the "auto-ottava" code for your >project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody >who sees utility in it. > >I think that probably works. I can just add that to the top of the >file.
I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has Ursno license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. > >> My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, >should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code >base in the future, there would be no complication. > >Lilypond uses the GPL and can make use of code licensed to the public >domain (anyone can use public domain code with any license for any >purpose). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGovAdd I >think applies. > >> You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in >any way with LilyPond's license? > >Nope. In fact version 3 of the GPL (the version that Lilypond uses) >specifically mentions that it can be used with stuff licensed with the >Affero GPL. The "Affero" clause was intended to close a potential >loophole concerning web applications and otherwise uses the exact same >wording as the GPL and is maintained by the FSF >(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html). > >On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, David Nalesnik ><david.nales...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi David. >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, David Bellows <davebell...@gmail.com> >wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I have a big coding project that generates Lilypond files to be >>> processed by Lilypond in an external process. My software is GPL. I >>> make use of a couple of scripts that were produced on this list but >>> have not been uploaded to the LSR. They are significant enough that >I >>> would consider them of concern when thinking about licensing issues. >>> >>> I've contacted the authors in each of these cases asking them to add >>> license information to these scripts but so far I haven't heard back >>> from them. >>> >>> OK, that's how these things go, but since things like this can come >up >>> again I was wondering if anyone has a knowledgeable opinion on the >>> state of code posted to a mail list like this? Is it automatically >>> public domain and so I don't need any additional licensing from the >>> original authors? >>> >>> Does it make a difference if the scripts were derived from code from >the >>> LSR? >> >> >> Sorry about not contacting you sooner! >> >> I'm more than happy to let you use the "auto-ottava" code for your >project. >> By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees >utility >> in it. >> >> My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, >should I >> or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in >the >> future, there would be no complication. >> >> You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in >any >> way with LilyPond's license? >> >> Best, >> David >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >lilypond-user mailing list >lilypond-user@gnu.org >https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user