Hi. Moving back to the ML; it was not my intention to discuss this "off-list"; I hope I won't be sued for public disclosure of a private communication. ;-)
[See quoted text for the two messages that went off-list.] 2020-09-22 12:40 UTC+02:00, Karsten Reincke <[email protected]>: > > On 22.09.20 12:17, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >> Hi. >> >> 2020-09-22 11:07 UTC+02:00, Karsten Reincke <[email protected]>: >>> Dear Carl; >>> >>> here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy: >> Is this what your are aiming at: >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html >> ? > Yep, but please keep in mind: I think, tt's not necessary to modify the > licensing statements of Lilypond itself (the interpreter). The GPL-v3 > seems to be perfect. Then, I don't understand the rest of the reasoning.[1] Why do you require a different license for using an *external* extension (like OpenLilyLib), than for using any of 900+ (".ly" and ".scm" files bundled with LilyPond) internal ones. Would it change anything if OpenLilyLib were bundled too (or downloaded automatically as part of the LilyPond installation process)? Regards, Gilles [1] IANAL: It would be interesting if you could provide links to cases where a situation as you described has occurred (i.e. IIUC a court decision that forced someone to offer his copyrighted work because it was produced with a copyleft software). >> If so, do you confirm that currently you do not use "lilypond" (the >> software) itself in order to compile music into a score (e.g. PDF) >> because that exception is *not* mentioned for the software? > > No, I do not confirm this. I use Lilypond as probably al the others. I > write my music scores by using the lilypond language. And I let compile > my music score into PDF (and midi) files by the Lilypond program. > Mostly, I use Frescobaldi to edit my music score. > > I look at Lilypond at that what it is: a programming language and a > compiler/interpreter. If you need another analogy: I look at Lilypond > like I look at php : a programming language and an interpreter. > > Now let us switch on the level of Lilypond code (on the level of a php > program): If a php program includes a lib licensed under the GPL, it has > to be released under the terms of the GPL too. And so is the > relationship between Lilypond Music Code and OpenLilyLib. > >> If not (and you do use "lilypond"), how is the situation any different >> with an extension (like OpenLilyLib) from any other extension that >> is provided when installing LilyPond? > > My code does not include any other Library (no include / import > statement). That'sd the differenct. > > If you want to highlight the point, that interpretation of my Lilypond > code is done by expanding my code by literally replacing my elements by > 'your' GPL licensed guile scheme code, then indeed we also need an > exception like the exception for C/C++ include files. > > > with best regards Karsten > > > -- > Karsten Reincke /\/\ (+49|0) 170 / 927 78 57 > Im Braungeröll 31 >oo< mailto:[email protected] > 60431 Frankfurt a.M. \/ http://www.fodina.de/kr/ > >
