On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 00:55 +0000, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > On 10/29/19, 5:46 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Karsten Reincke <k.rein...@fodina.de> wrotes: > > [...] > > > > [4] But if a GPL licensed LilyPond snippet is used by another LilyPond > > code (either by a functional call into the included snippet or by > > literally copying the snippet into the other code), then the copyleft > > effect of the GPL is triggered. > > > [...] > > I disagree with your assessment that calling any code/function makes the > work doing so a derivative of that code (that would concern using > OpenLilyLib code). I do agree that including/using/changing LSR > snippets as part of your work means deriving from them. That's why I > would agree that using the GPL for the LSR snippets would not be > desirable since it would introduce a licensing regime where it seems > exaggerated. > > I agree with this comment only to the extent that you are distributing the > source code for your music. If you only distribute the PDF and/or MIDI > output, > the GPL does not apply, according to the FSF: > > " In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too? > (#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL) > The output of a program is not, in general, covered by the copyright on the > code > of the program. So the license of the code of the program does not apply to > the > output, whether you pipe it into a file, make a screenshot, screencast, or > video.
Many thanks for your comment. It contains an important hint. BUt it is a bit apart from my crucial point: I am not arguing that my LilyPond work (or a snippet) is covered by the GPL because it is 'executed' by LilyPond. I argue that my code is covered by the GPL if I use (include or copy) a GPL licensed snippet. And if it is covered, then in accordance to the GPL §6 (title: "Conveying Non-Source Forms") also the compiled version is covered by the GPL. (BTW: even a picture is binary code which is interpreted) Nevertheless, I would be happy if the statement you quoted would be judically approved! But as long as we do not have such a legal descision there is a great risk that my scientific and artistical music work can freely be used due to the fact that I used a GPL licensed snippet for ceating the music scores - a risk, which I don't want to take. But even if I agreed with your position, then we both still have to conlude, that we can only distribute / hand over our LilyPond code under the terms of the GPL, if our code used a GPL licensed snippet. And even this is a strong side effect. with best regards Karsten > Carl Sorensen > > 1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL > > > -- Karsten Reincke /\/\ (+49|0) 170 / 927 78 57 Im Braungeröll 31 >oo< mailto:k.rein...@fodina.de 60431 Frankfurt a.M. \/ http://www.fodina.de/kr/