On 04/02/2013 06:51 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/02/2013 11:38 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
[...]
You've just answered your own question. You have just said that this program
does NOT contain ANY copyrighted content from the gsl.
As such, it is not a derivative work. That's what the
On 04/04/2013 02:50 PM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
Then, everybody is free to use my-app.C constraint to my terms, since they
are
imposed on this very file. However, nobody would be allowed to use /GSL/ to
compile this program, because GPL considers my-app.C a covered work
/whenever
used with
Zitat von Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net:
Hello all,
A question which has come up, and where I'm not sure what the answer or
intention is.
Lilypond is licensed under the GPL and reading through the license file, I
didn't come across any granted exceptions (IIRC the
On 03/04/13 03:21, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/03/2013 01:14 AM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
If your work does not include any of their work, then you don't need any
permission to not copy their work! :-)
But I'm not talking about copying. I'm talking about the right to use.
And if
On 03/04/13 10:22, li...@ursliska.de wrote:
I think there is one thing this discussion proves impressively: Things
are much less non-ambiguous than most of the participants assume.
Something I've learnt from my time on Groklaw is that the GPL is, in
fact, extremely clear.
The problem is that
On 04/03/2013 01:08 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
Dare I suggest you look at section zero? The second paragraph of which
says, and I quote:
You're talking about GPL version 2, not GPL version 3.
Compare:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
... where the second paragraph of Section 0 is exactly
Can we all agree now that the law, justice, and licences are three
different entities. And it would take the opinion of someone well versed in
all three to quiet this ruckus. And furthermore even if we have a solid
answer from a respected source, either justice or law could still supersede
such an
Wols Lists antlists at youngman.org.uk writes:
On 03/04/13 10:22, lists at ursliska.de wrote:
I think there is one thing this discussion proves impressively: Things
are much less non-ambiguous than most of the participants assume.
Something I've learnt from my time on Groklaw is that the
On 03/29/2013 10:39 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
First of all, I think we have quite a consensus on what we intend - which is
a good start.
Yup. :-)
I slightly disagree, although your considerations are valuable and give some
good insights in the situation.
I think the 'ambiguity' Joe is talking
On 03/29/2013 11:26 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
but aside from that I think there are
probably several other ways in which it could be done, including ensuring
that
all files intended to be \include'd
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 03/29/2013 10:39 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
First of all, I think we have quite a consensus on what we intend -
which is a good start.
Yup. :-)
I slightly disagree, although your considerations are valuable and
give some good
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 03/29/2013 11:26 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
An example came to my mind: imagine someone typesetting a score and
using one (just one) function from OLLib. Distributing whole OLLib
together with the
On 03/30/2013 01:02 AM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
On the other hand, user C /should/ be allowed to distribute source code under
whatever license he wants to /as long as he doesn't ship the GPL libraries
with
it./ It's useless without them, but anybody who wants to run or compile the
code is
On 04/02/2013 03:52 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
The main difference is work as a whole vs mere aggregation. If you
include some file as a form of invoking its documented interface, you
form no new combined work.
Indeed, which if I recall right is how Google was able to provide non-GPL'd
header
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 03/30/2013 01:02 AM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
On the other hand, user C /should/ be allowed to distribute source code under
whatever license he wants to /as long as he doesn't ship the GPL
libraries with
it./ It's useless without
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
Anyway, back to the key issue -- would you like me to draft an email to the
Software Freedom Law Center? The fact that this issue is of concern also to
people in the TeX community makes me feel that
On 04/02/2013 10:04 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/30/2013 01:02 AM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
On the other hand, user C /should/ be allowed to distribute source code under
whatever license he wants to /as long as he doesn't ship the GPL libraries with
it./ It's useless without them,
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net schrieb:
Anyway, back to the key issue -- would you like me to draft an email to
the
Software Freedom Law Center? The fact that this issue is of concern
also to
people in the TeX community makes me feel that it's something they
should
On 04/02/2013 05:07 PM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
This certainly applies to compiled code, with the GPL'ed library statically
linked, and also (I stand corrected) with dynamic linkage, AFAIU. I still
cannot see how it /could/ possibly apply to source code:
Well, the examples you cite consider a
On 04/02/2013 07:07 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
My suggestion would be to either have a sort of lilypond license or
(better) an explicit exception/clarification stating that the use of
functions defined in the LilyPond distribution (either implicit or through an
explicit include) do not require
On 04/02/2013 07:33 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
If I do not copy the actual file into my .ly file but only have the \include
statement, I have not violated copyright. It would be up to any subsequent
user to obtain the copyrighted Bob Jones file to use with \include or to come
up with a
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
For the cases we're considering -- OLLib and the .ly files bundled
with Lilypond
-- the _simplest_ method that I can see is to license them
permissively. Boost,
Apache, BSD/MIT/X11 and the GNU All-Permissive Licence are all
On 04/02/2013 08:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
LilyPond is a GNU program and so follows the licensing policies of the
GNU project.
Sure, but I don't see that this prevents you from making a permissive licensing
choice for parts of your program where this is appropriate -- I imagine the GNU
On Apr 2, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/02/2013 07:33 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
If I do not copy the actual file into my .ly file but only have the \include
statement, I have not violated copyright. It would be up to any subsequent
user to obtain the copyrighted Bob
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 04/02/2013 08:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
LilyPond is a GNU program and so follows the licensing policies of the
GNU project.
Sure, but I don't see that this prevents you from making a permissive
licensing choice for parts of
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
Anyway, I would really appreciate your input on whether (and what) to
write to the Software Freedom Law Center.
Since I can't share your concerns, I can't give you any advice what to
ask the SFLC in order to address them. That's
On 04/02/2013 09:50 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Apr 2, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
But now suppose that bobjones.ly defines a number of new functions, \bobFoo,
\bobBar, etc., and that you use them on a number of occasions throughout your
own .ly file. Is the issue so
On 04/02/2013 10:33 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Since I can't share your concerns, I can't give you any advice what to
ask the SFLC in order to address them. That's quite up to you.
Fair enough. I was concerned that you might actively disapprove of my doing so,
in which case I'd have wanted to
On 02/04/2013 15:04, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/30/2013 01:02 AM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
On the other hand, user C /should/ be allowed to distribute source code under
whatever license he wants to /as long as he doesn't ship the GPL libraries with
it./ It's useless without them, but
On 02/04/2013 15:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/02/2013 03:52 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
The main difference is work as a whole vs mere aggregation. If you
include some file as a form of invoking its documented interface, you
form no new combined work.
Indeed, which if I recall right
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
The fact that TeX users are having similar concerns
Uh, so far I have just seen fantasizing about TeX users having similar
concerns.
(and that no one could provide a concrete answer)
Hardly surprising since in the TeX world the GPL
On 02/04/2013 18:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
When you add to that the fact that the particular case we're concerned with
involves copyleft licensing which gives a particular and precise definition to
what is considered a derivative work, it really doesn't seem to me possible to
just write
Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk writes:
Indeed, this legal claim (that using functions creates a derivative
work) is exactly the claim that Oracle tried with Android and Java,
and they came a royal cropper with it.
exactly in the meaning of quite the opposite of. Oracle did not try
On 04/02/2013 11:17 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
So as long as Google stuck to using interfaces that the kernel devs explicitly
published to user space, then using those header files EXPLICITLY does NOT
create a derivative work, and therefore the GPL can NOT cross that boundary.
That's exactly
On 02/04/2013 22:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/02/2013 09:50 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
OK, now let's consider a specific example. Here's a bit of C code that
generates 100 random numbers and calculates their sum.
On 04/02/2013 11:28 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
A derivative work is whatever the LAW says it is (whatever that is :-). NO
open
source licence defines the term derivative work, although they may give
their
own interpretation of what they think it is.
The actual GPL term is a covered work,
On 02/04/2013 22:34, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/02/2013 11:17 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
So as long as Google stuck to using interfaces that the kernel devs explicitly
published to user space, then using those header files EXPLICITLY does NOT
create a derivative work, and therefore the
On 02/04/2013 22:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/02/2013 11:28 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
A derivative work is whatever the LAW says it is (whatever that is :-). NO open
source licence defines the term derivative work, although they may give their
own interpretation of what they think
On 02/04/2013 22:31, David Kastrup wrote:
Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk writes:
Indeed, this legal claim (that using functions creates a derivative
work) is exactly the claim that Oracle tried with Android and Java,
and they came a royal cropper with it.
exactly in the meaning of
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
On 04/03/2013 12:01 AM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
But as I understand it, the lawsuit as actually sued said apis are copyright
and you would have needed a licence to use the apis - to use Oracle's Java.
That's exactly in line with what David said. Google were providing a clean-room
Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk writes:
If they DID relicence it, then it is copyrightable
Nonsense. An explicit license can be given for things not actually
requiring a license for particular uses under current legal standards.
It is a pledge if you follow these rules, I won't drag
On 04/02/2013 11:57 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Indeed, and a consequence of distributing a covered work under
GPL-incompatible terms is that you lose the permissions granted under that
license.
EXCEPT EXCEPT EXCEPT THE LAW SAYS YOU *DON'T*
On 02/04/2013 23:28, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/03/2013 12:01 AM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
But as I understand it, the lawsuit as actually sued said apis are copyright
and you would have needed a licence to use the apis - to use Oracle's Java.
That's exactly in line with what David
Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk writes:
The GPL *relies* *on* *the* *law*.
Not really. The GPL grants permissions under conditions. Of course,
there is little interest in permissions one does not need, so the GPL is
modeled along laws. But the grant of conditional permissions does
Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk writes:
On 02/04/2013 22:31, David Kastrup wrote:
Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk writes:
Indeed, this legal claim (that using functions creates a derivative
work) is exactly the claim that Oracle tried with Android and Java,
and they came a
On 02/04/2013 23:31, David Kastrup wrote:
Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk writes:
If they DID relicence it, then it is copyrightable
Nonsense. An explicit license can be given for things not actually
requiring a license for particular uses under current legal standards.
It is a
On 04/02/2013 11:38 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
(Function names and APIs are generally considered to be uncopyrightable.)
However, I think the consensus of opinion about free software licensing would
be that, in distributing to you this little
On 02/04/2013 23:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/02/2013 11:57 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Indeed, and a consequence of distributing a covered work under
GPL-incompatible terms is that you lose the permissions granted under that
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
My right to use the GNU Scientific Library is conditional on following
certain obligations -- if I breach those obligations, I lose the right
to use the GNU Scientific Library. One such obligation relates to the
licensing that must
On 02/04/2013 23:46, David Kastrup wrote:
That wasn't what the lawsuit was about. It was not even what Oracle
claimed the lawsuit to be about. The issue was the reimplementation of
Java classes, not the_use_ of Java classes.
Yes.
But the only thing that Oracle could sue over was the use of
On Apr 2, 2013, at 5:37 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 04/02/2013 11:57 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Indeed, and a consequence of distributing a covered work under
GPL-incompatible terms is that you lose
Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk writes:
On 02/04/2013 23:46, David Kastrup wrote:
That wasn't what the lawsuit was about. It was not even what Oracle
claimed the lawsuit to be about. The issue was the reimplementation of
Java classes, not the_use_ of Java classes.
Yes.
But the
On Apr 2, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 04/02/2013 11:38 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
(Function names and APIs are generally considered to be uncopyrightable.)
However, I think the consensus
On 04/03/2013 01:45 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Is that in fact correct? The quibbles here is what constitutes derivation.
If you write a program that calls a library during its function, is that
program derived from the library? Or is the library just a resource that the
application uses?
On Apr 2, 2013, at 8:47 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 04/03/2013 01:45 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Is that in fact correct? The quibbles here is what constitutes derivation.
If you write a program that calls a library during its function, is that
What I really want to know is how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin...
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
On 04/03/2013 01:22 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Yes, it is. The terms of use of a proprietary program generally presume
a binding contract _restricting_ the scope of rights normally granted
with the legitimate purchase of media.
The difference is that the proprietary vendor needs to establish
On 04/03/2013 01:14 AM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
If your work does not include any of their work, then you don't need any
permission to not copy their work! :-)
But I'm not talking about copying. I'm talking about the right to use.
And if you read the GPL, version 2 (I presume 3 has similar
At this point, I'm in favor of sending a letter for legal input,
primarily to bring the back and forth speculation to a close.
It's been an entertaining diversion, but by now,
the only thing that's clear to me is that the list's
signal-to-noise ratio has dropped to a level
where the list is
On 03/28/2013 08:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
My understanding is always been that the GPL applies to the software used to
produce a file, not to the file itself.
I think (at least in this case) you mean process, not produce.
You can draw an analogy to e.g. shell scripts, where the fact that
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
Personally I feel it would be nice to resolve any potential ambiguity.
Obviously the best way to do this is just to show that I'm definitively wrong
in
my interpretation (this would be nice:-),
On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:42 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/28/2013 08:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
My understanding is always been that the GPL applies to the software used to
produce a file, not to the file itself.
I think (at least in this case) you mean process, not produce.
I
First of all, I think we have quite a consensus on what we intend - which is a
good start.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:43:59 -0500
Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:42 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/28/2013 08:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
My understanding is
On 03/29/2013 05:39 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
large snip/
Now take a programming language as another example (PHP and Python are
explicitely _not_ distributed under the GPL BTW).
The interpreter is GPLed by group A, as well as some libraries.
User B writes a program in that language. This program is
On 03/29/2013 06:26 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
An example came to my mind: imagine someone typesetting a score and
using one (just one) function from OLLib. Distributing whole OLLib
together with the score just to have this one functionality would be
inconvenient, so he'd like to actually paste
Hello all,
A question which has come up, and where I'm not sure what the answer or
intention is.
Lilypond is licensed under the GPL and reading through the license file, I
didn't come across any granted exceptions (IIRC the fonts have an exception for
embedding them into a document).
So, how
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
Hello all,
A question which has come up, and where I'm not sure what the answer or
intention is.
Lilypond is licensed under the GPL and reading through the license file, I
didn't come across any granted exceptions (IIRC the fonts
On 03/28/2013 06:35 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't see that. \include is an instruction, not an actual inclusion.
As opposed to dynamic linking, there is no combined entity being formed
for the sake of execution where one could possibly claim contributory
infringement. The inner workings
On Mar 28, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
I should add that the underlying motivation here is licensing clarity for some
of Urs and Janek's work on useful toolboxes for Lilypond. It's clearly
desirable that these kits be copylefted as far as any
70 matches
Mail list logo
