Re: license question

[Arle Lommel]

> From: David Nalesnik  >
> Subject: license question
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have a question concerning the GPL.  Is it permissible for an app
> under a GPL-incompatible license to provide output in LilyPond code?
> For example, could Finale provide a Finale->LilyPond converter even
> though the mechanics are shrouded in mystery?
> 
> Thanks,
> David



I am not a lawyer, but this question closely aligns with issues related to 
those currently before the US Supreme Court in Google v. Oracle.

With that preamble, here is my understanding:

A converter is not reproducing code. No license from the GLP project applies to 
it because you are not reproducing licensed code. The converter produces a 
textual representation of music, and this representation itself is not subject 
to the GPL terms. *Anything* can generate that code because no copyright 
applies to a method, which is what an abstract process for going from something 
like g4^. to a graphic representation of a staccato G quarter note is.

Also note that if someone wanted to write a clean-room interpreter or converter 
for Lilypond code that did not use any GPL code, that should be legal as well, 
because methods are not subject to copyright (although code is) and a Lilypond 
input file is a call to methods, not to code (although those methods are 
instantiated in code).

So there is really no reason you couldn’t create a Finale>Lilypond converter. 
The license of Lilypond itself wouldn’t matter to you in this regard because 
you wouldn’t be reproducing GPL code. You could in turn choose any license for 
the code of your converter.

-Arle

Re: license question

[Urs Liska]

Am 21. Januar 2020 20:25:43 MEZ schrieb David Kastrup :
>David Nalesnik  writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a question concerning the GPL.  Is it permissible for an app
>> under a GPL-incompatible license to provide output in LilyPond code?
>> For example, could Finale provide a Finale->LilyPond converter even
>> though the mechanics are shrouded in mystery?
>
>Most certainly so.  Making a combined application running in the same
>process space would be a problem, but calling LilyPond as an executable
>is pretty uncontroversial.  If you distribute it as an aggregate
>solution, you need to provide the source of the LilyPond component (as
>it is being used) on request or by default.  But running it as a server
>is unproblematic.
>
>But if you don't even include LilyPond but produce LilyPond output, no
>license comes into play.  I mean, unless your output contains
>copyrightable code taken from somewhere else.

I would put it like this: you can produce LilyPond input files/code with 
whatever you want, even your copyrighted brain.

Also  you can produce with GPLed software any content, the copyright in 
question is only thd content author's, not that of LilyPond.

Urs
-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

Re: license question

[David Kastrup]

David Nalesnik  writes:

> Hi all,
>
> I have a question concerning the GPL.  Is it permissible for an app
> under a GPL-incompatible license to provide output in LilyPond code?
> For example, could Finale provide a Finale->LilyPond converter even
> though the mechanics are shrouded in mystery?

Most certainly so.  Making a combined application running in the same
process space would be a problem, but calling LilyPond as an executable
is pretty uncontroversial.  If you distribute it as an aggregate
solution, you need to provide the source of the LilyPond component (as
it is being used) on request or by default.  But running it as a server
is unproblematic.

But if you don't even include LilyPond but produce LilyPond output, no
license comes into play.  I mean, unless your output contains
copyrightable code taken from somewhere else.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: license question

[mason]

> I have a question concerning the GPL.  Is it permissible for an app
> under a GPL-incompatible license to provide output in LilyPond code?
> For example, could Finale provide a Finale->LilyPond converter even
> though the mechanics are shrouded in mystery?

IANAL, but I don't think this would be a problem.  Finale cannot
incorporate any of Lilypond's code in order to achieve this
functionality, but I don't thing anything would stop them from
implementing it themselves.

This reminds me of MATLAB and GNU Octave.  There this situation is
reversed, in that the proprietary program came before the GPL'd program,
but it is another example of two programs with incompatible licenses
using the same syntax.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: license question

[Carl Sorensen]

On 1/21/20, 11:07 AM, "David Nalesnik"  wrote:

Hi all,

I have a question concerning the GPL.  Is it permissible for an app
under a GPL-incompatible license to provide output in LilyPond code?
For example, could Finale provide a Finale->LilyPond converter even
though the mechanics are shrouded in mystery?

Thanks,
David

Finale could provide a Finale->LilyPond converter, but it could not use 
LilyPond GPL code to do so.

The LilyPond language is not copyrighted; the LilyPond code is, as far as I 
understand.

Carl

Re: license question

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

> I have a question concerning the GPL.  Is it permissible for an app
> under a GPL-incompatible license to provide output in LilyPond code?
> For example, could Finale provide a Finale->LilyPond converter even
> though the mechanics are shrouded in mystery?

I’m very interested to hear informed opinions/answers… but if it’s anything 
except "of course they can do that!" (which is my instinct), then I really 
don’t understand what "free" means.  =)

Best,
Kieren.