Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > I haven’t seen anything about GNU software that tries to restrict > freedom of use. In fact, one of the key issues of GNU software is > exactly freedom of use. The GNU licenses don’t say that any code > compiled with gcc must have a GPL license. They only say that any > modifications to *the GPL software* must have a GPL license.
The pertinent rules are the GNU maintainer guidelines. <https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Ethical-and-Philosophical-Consideration> > As far as I can see, as long as the copyright holder for the music has > given the permission for the music to be published on the internet, > it’s perfectly fine for LilyPond, as a GNU project, to link to the > location where the music is published. The passage in question is: A GNU package should not recommend use of any non-free program, nor should it require a non-free program (such as a non-free compiler or IDE) to build. Thus, a GNU package cannot be written in a programming language that does not have a free software implementation. Now that GNU/Linux systems are widely available, all GNU packages should provide full functionality on a 100% free GNU/Linux system, and should not require any non-free software to build or function. The GNU Coding Standards say a lot more about this issue. Similarly, a GNU package should not require the use of non-free software, including JavaScript, for the coordination of its development. For example, please don’t use Transifex for translation of your software because it requires your translators to use non-free, JavaScript-based editing tools. Instead, a service without any ethical concerns should be used, such as The Translation Project (https://translationproject.org). A GNU package should not refer the user to any non-free documentation for free software. The need for free documentation to come with free software is now a major focus of the GNU project; to show that we are serious about the need for free documentation, we must not contradict our position by recommending use of documentation that isn’t free. As you can clearly see, that the GNU licenses don't restrict freedom of use (though they restrict non-freedom of use) and that GCC can be used for compiling non-free software does not mean that referring to non-free software in documentation (and web sites) is desired. So your argument does not match what the guidelines clearly state. However, as I stated the main concern of the FSF and of GNU's official stance stops with software and its documentation. Where we want ours to stop with regard to musical scores is basically not proscribed. My personal opinion is that if we have the ability to point people to scores with clearly defined permissions of use, that's a preferable value proposition to more comprehensive collections people may or may not be using legally for some purpose. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user