On 04/02/2013 11:25 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Uh, so far I have just seen fantasizing about TeX users having similar > concerns.
I did post a link before: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/69007/the-gpl-and-latex-packages Sure, it's not a huge wellspring of concern, but as you say, that's ... > Hardly surprising since in the TeX world the GPL is not used frequently. I imagine that if it were more widely used there would probably have been some kind of formal pronouncement on this issue years ago. > Are you sure you are not getting carried away with a self-made view of > the situation? There is that risk. :-) Look, let me try and calm things down: I am not seeing this as some massive horror that is going to haunt Lilypond, if for no other reason than that I can't see a single Lilypond developer trying to claim GPL violation against a user distributing source for their scores. By "warning sign" I meant simply a sign that the concern is not unique to me, or to Lilypond. I simply think this is a question to which it would be useful to have a concrete answer. However, I'll readily plead guilty to getting carried away in debating licensing issues in general. No just on this ocasion, either ... :-) > Feel free to ask the SFLC, but I don't see the point in trying to spin > this out of proportion before even doing so. Any email I write will be calm and carefully laid out. What I really, really want is for my concerns to be proven unfounded -- the second best as far as I can see is to get clear and useful advice. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
