Dear Carl;
here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy:
(1.A) MIT/GNU Scheme:
(a) is an interpreter of the Scheme programming language
(b) is licensed under the GPL
(c) takes Scheme Code & delivers output
(https://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/)
=> Any Scheme code being taken as input for the MIT/GNU Scheme
interpreter may be licensed under any other license. The GPL copy left
effect only affects the development of the MIT/GNU Scheme interpreter
itself.
(1.B) guile-aspell
(a) is a Guile Scheme library for comparing a string against a dictionary
(b) is licensed under GPL 3+
(c) is included into an overarching program functionally using this library
(d) is interpreted by MIT/GNU Scheme in combination with the overarching
program
https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/libraries/
=> Due to §5.c of GPL-v3 (https://www.gnu.de/documents/gpl-3.0.en.html)
the overarching program using the library guile-aspell must be released
under the terms of GPL-v3 too because it depends of the functionally of
the guile-aspell library
(2.A) Lilypond:
(a) is an interpreter of the Lilypond notation language
(b) is licensed under the GPL
(c) takes Lilypond code & delivers output
(https://lilypond.org/index.html)
=> Any Lilypond code being taken as input for the Lilypond program may
be licensed under any other license. The GPL copy left effect only
affects the development of the Lilypond program itself
(2.B) OpenLilyLib
(a) is a Lilypond library for the GNU LilyPond music notation software
(b) is licensed under GPL 3+
(c) is included into an overarching lilypond music code functionally
using this library
(d) is interpreted by the LilyPond interpeter in combination with the
overarching lilypond music code
https://openlilylib.org/
=> Due to §5.c of GPL-v3 (https://www.gnu.de/documents/gpl-3.0.en.html)
the overarching lilypond code using the library OpenLilyLib must be
released under the terms of GPL-v3 too because it depends of the
functionally of the OpenLilyLib library
Summary:
If I wrote a piece of music using LilyPond Code (for being interpreted
by the Lilypond interpreter) and if I included OpenLilyLib into my code,
you as the Copyright owners of OpenLilyLib could me enforce to
distribute my work (music'score) under the terms of the GPL simply by
using this analogy. By using my explanation, you would win every trial
in every legal area which accepted the GPL as an effective license.
That's the risk I would have to take, if I used OpenLilyLib to ease my work.
Supplement:
Andrew Bernard asked in another mail, whether it would be "my intent to
shut down lilypond altogether" by pointing out this license issue. He
fears the "deleterious effect of my post", that "the users and readers
of this list" could be "deterred from using it". He does not want to "
see OpenLilyLib because of a complicated legal misrepresentation".
Finally, he declared my hint "as an attempt to damage openlilylib in
people's minds" and demanded "Really, enough now."
Once for all:
1) It was my intention to be enabled to use OpenLilyLib.
2) It is not a misinterpretation, it is the established viewpoint.
Another 3rd. example: Due to the same reason, MariaDB has re-licensed
its connectors under the LGPL for preventing its users from the trap of
the GPL licensed mysql connectors.
3) Mr. Bernard did not consider the difference between the interpreting
program and the interpreted code. That's his fault and leads to his
misunderstandings.
4) Mr. Bernard wants to protect his work (a well understandable
objective) and tries to protect it be declaring his disputant (me) as an
enemy with a dishonest hidden agenda. He can do so. But he - and
therefore: Urs, who has asked for help - has lost a potential contributor.
5) There would be a simple solution for all, for him, for me, and for
the readers of this mailing list: he simply could add an 'including
exception' to his licensing statement, which clearly and explicitly
says, that including OpenLilyLib does not cause the copyleft effect to
the including lilypond code. He would not lose anything: each
improvement to OpenLilyLib had to be released under the terms of the GPL
v3, too. And - as he might signal by his words in this discussion - the
using music code remains private.
The fact, that Mr. Bernard apparently does not want to realize point 5.,
puzzles me.
I remain respectfully yours
Karsten Reincke
On 22.09.20 00:26, Carl Sorensen wrote:
[...]
What is special about OpenLilyLib that requires LilyPond music to be
released under the GPL, when music not using OpenLilyLib does not need
to be released under the GPL? How does OpenLilyLib change the type of
license required for the PDF file generated by LilyPond?
[...]
LilyPond is GPL. If base LilyPond doesn't require music to be
released under the terms of the GPL, why does including OpenLilyLib
suddenly enforce those terms on the music?
[...]
Can you explain that to me?
Thanks,
Carl
--
Karsten Reincke /\/\ (+49|0) 170 / 927 78 57
Im Braungeröll 31 >oo< mailto:k.rein...@fodina.de
60431 Frankfurt a.M. \/ http://www.fodina.de/kr/
