Le 21/10/2022 à 13:21, Kevin Barry a écrit :
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 01:12:09PM +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
-- AFAIK, this is the first time we have to do a relicensing,
and the odds of a legal case involving LilyPond are very small
due to its low-key profile in the industry. I feel this
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 01:27:07PM +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> It would have helped IMO if all the more or less unrelated side
> questions had been raised in separate threads…
Well yes, but it's totally unavoidable any time licencing comes up for
discussion. The subject itself seems to be a
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 01:12:09PM +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> -- AFAIK, this is the first time we have to do a relicensing,
> and the odds of a legal case involving LilyPond are very small
> due to its low-key profile in the industry. I feel this would
> be much ado about nothing.
This is
Le 21/10/2022 à 13:08, Luca Fascione a écrit :
Well, the TeX people say that if the style file is GPL, the entire
document is GPL, look:
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2735/gpl-licensed-latex-template-implications-for-resulting-work
So I think this constitutes evidence
Le 20/10/2022 à 09:26, Luca Fascione a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 9:07 AM Jean Abou Samra
wrote:
Anyway, this discussion is academical. It would have practical
relevance if we were creating the project today.
`git shortlog -s | wc -l` tells that there have been
236
Le 20/10/2022 à 15:46, Luca Fascione a écrit :
To be clear: the potential issue I see is when the score or some of
the headers it includes are GPL licensed, of course.
Now of course the boundary between 'score' and 'lilypond plugin' in
our case is particularly blurry, but still, it seems the
Le 21/10/2022 à 12:32, Jan Nieuwenhuizen a écrit :
To my knowledge, this is a more or less isolated case. It would be
simpler to have all of LSR in the public domain. Would you mind
sending a written statement that you release this code under the
public domain?
Sure.
Hereby I place this
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 1:00 PM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le 20/10/2022 à 15:46, Luca Fascione a écrit :
> > To be clear: the potential issue I see is when the score or some of
> > the headers it includes are GPL licensed, of course.
> > Now of course the boundary between 'score' and 'lilypond
Le 20/10/2022 à 21:41, Thomas Morley a écrit :
Am Do., 20. Okt. 2022 um 02:34 Uhr schrieb Jean Abou Samra :
I figured that now I am an LSR editor, I had to learn about what
legal responsibility I have when accepting contributions.
Well, I think the work of an LSR editor is roughly described
Jean Abou Samra writes:
Hello Jean,
> Adding you to this lilypond-devel thread.
[..]
> In doing so, Valentin didn't realize that moving this code to LSR was
> a violation of the GPL, because the code was under GPL but LSR
> snippets are in the public domain.
Right. Sounds like an honest
Hi Jan,
Adding you to this lilypond-devel thread.
Short story: in 2019, Valentin moved the legacy Banter chord names code
from the LilyPond source to a snippet
(https://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=102). This code was originally
written by you, with only minor fixes from other contributors as
Am Do., 20. Okt. 2022 um 21:30 Uhr schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys :
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 2:34 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > So far, so good. However, take this snippet:
> >
> > https://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=102
> >
> > It begins with 300 lines of code that used to be in the LilyPond
> >
Am Do., 20. Okt. 2022 um 02:34 Uhr schrieb Jean Abou Samra :
> I figured that now I am an LSR editor, I had to learn about what
> legal responsibility I have when accepting contributions.
Well, I think the work of an LSR editor is roughly described in CG 7. LSR work.
Afaict, license issues are
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 2:34 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> So far, so good. However, take this snippet:
>
> https://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=102
>
> It begins with 300 lines of code that used to be in the LilyPond
> repository, released under the GPL, before they were considered
> legacy and
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:47 PM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > Le 20/10/2022 12:59 CEST, Luca Fascione a écrit :
> > I think having GPL content in the lsr is the least desirable in the long
> term, because either folks using it won't notice, or they might find
> themselves unable or unwilling to
Wols Lists writes:
> On 20/10/2022 11:34, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>> The LSR distributes a piece of GPLed code under GPL-incompatible
>> terms, which is illegal, period. I don't think I am imagining
>> a problem here. Being an LSR-editor now, I don't like having
>> my responsibility involved in
To be clear: the potential issue I see is when the score or some of the
headers it includes are GPL licensed, of course.
Now of course the boundary between 'score' and 'lilypond plugin' in our
case is particularly blurry, but still, it seems the
question is germane to the discussion at hand.
L
Hum. It seems to me this is greyer that what you say.
gcc transforms program.c into a.out
Your access to a.out gives you rights to access program.c
s/gcc/lilypond/; s/program.c/score.ly/; s/a.out/out.pdf/;
I see very little difference.
More importantly, what would lawyers and judges from
> Le 20/10/2022 12:59 CEST, Luca Fascione a écrit :
>
>
> Or you remove it, or you reimplement it
Well yes.
> I think having GPL content in the lsr is the least desirable in the long
> term, because either folks using it won't notice, or they might find
> themselves unable or unwilling to
Or you remove it, or you reimplement it
I think having GPL content in the lsr is the least desirable in the long
term, because either folks using it won't notice, or they might find
themselves unable or unwilling to use GPL as part of their content.
I'm not clear what it means to have GPL source
On 20/10/2022 11:34, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
The LSR distributes a piece of GPLed code under GPL-incompatible
terms, which is illegal, period. I don't think I am imagining
a problem here. Being an LSR-editor now, I don't like having
my responsibility involved in copyright infringement.
And as
> Le 20/10/2022 12:13 CEST, Kevin Barry a écrit :
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:32:58AM +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > What should we do about these snippets? Delete them?
> My two cents is that we should leave it alone and not spend time talking
> about licences because those
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:32:58AM +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> What should we do about these snippets? Delete them?
My two cents is that we should leave it alone and not spend time talking
about licences because those discussions rarely arrive at answers, and
most of the time there isn't
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> The LSR is advertised as being released under the public domain.
>> [...]
>>
>> The following exceptions apply:
>>
>> * It does not apply to input files (contained in the directory
>> tree Documentation/snippets/); these are in the public domain.
>> [...]
>>
Am Do., 20. Okt. 2022 um 07:23 Uhr schrieb Werner LEMBERG :
> > So far, so good. However, take this snippet:
> >
> > https://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=102
> >
> > It begins with 300 lines of code that used to be in the LilyPond
> > repository, released under the GPL, before they were considered
>> BTW, the term 'public domain' is problematic in Europe, since this
>> US law construct doesn't necessarily mean the same in all
>> countries, in particular not in Germany.[*]
>>
>> Maybe it should be changed to CC0
>> (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed) for
>> further
On 20/10/2022 01:32, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
What should we do about these snippets? Delete them? Introduce
an exception "snippets are in the public domain unless stated
otherwise" and add headers to them stating they are under
the GPL?
Create a GPL subdirectory under the snippets directory?
On 20/10/2022 06:55, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
Le 20/10/2022 à 07:38, Jean Abou Samra a écrit :
You just don't
become the copyright owner of the code, i.e., the copyright
header in the source repository should give the name of
the original author.
I have to correct myself. This is not correct,
> Le 20/10/2022 09:30 CEST, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
>
>
> >> You just don't become the copyright owner of the code, i.e., the
> >> copyright header in the source repository should give the name of
> >> the original author.
> > I have to correct myself. This is not correct, since copyright
>
>> You just don't become the copyright owner of the code, i.e., the
>> copyright header in the source repository should give the name of
>> the original author.
>
> I have to correct myself. This is not correct, since copyright
> doesn't exist for something in the public domain (as opposed to
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 9:07 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Anyway, this discussion is academical. It would have practical
> relevance if we were creating the project today.
> `git shortlog -s | wc -l` tells that there have been
> 236 contributors to the project. We cannot ask each of
> them to
> Le 20/10/2022 08:50 CEST, Luca Fascione a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 7:40 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > Le 20/10/2022 à 07:22, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
> >
> > It would be a problem if we assigned copyright to the FSF.
> > As you mentioned below, we don't do this.
> >
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 7:40 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le 20/10/2022 à 07:22, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
>
> It would be a problem if we assigned copyright to the FSF.
> As you mentioned below, we don't do this.
>
> > [*] Here comes the benefit of transferring the copyright to the FSF,
> >
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 7:57 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> This is not correct, since copyright doesn't
> exist for something in the public domain (as opposed to something released
> under a permissive license). So the file headers need not mention any
> copyright at all, if the code is
Le 20/10/2022 à 07:38, Jean Abou Samra a écrit :
You just don't
become the copyright owner of the code, i.e., the copyright
header in the source repository should give the name of
the original author.
I have to correct myself. This is not correct, since copyright doesn't
exist for something
Le 20/10/2022 à 07:22, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
Assuming that it is ok with , we can put his
outdated, GPLed code into the public domain. Harm, do you remember
the history of this snippet? [For such historical research it would
be great if the LSR was actually a git repository that gets
> The LSR is advertised as being released under the public domain.
> [...]
>
> The following exceptions apply:
>
> * It does not apply to input files (contained in the directory
> tree Documentation/snippets/); these are in the public domain.
> [...]
>
> So far, so good. However,
Hi,
I figured that now I am an LSR editor, I had to learn about what
legal responsibility I have when accepting contributions.
The LSR is advertised as being released under the public domain.
This is supposed to work in conjunction with LilyPond contributors
making modifications in
38 matches
Mail list logo
