Dear Carl; many thanks for your remarks, You'll find my answers int the
text too
On 22.09.20 15:49, Carl Sorensen wrote:
[...]
But here is where you lost me. The program using guile-aspell must be
released under the terms of GPL-v3. But the output of the program need
not be released under the terms of GPL-v3. The output can be released
under any terms the user desires to use.
guile-aspell is a library which is included into your program, which
therefore depends on the functionality of the guile-aspel lib
[...]
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.
This is false. The music score is output, not a program. It is not a
derivative work.
It would be a great luck if that was true and if every judge was seen it
the same way. Unfortunately, there are reasons, that it is not
necessarily true: Lilypond describes itself as a compiler system which
takes code and compiles it. Thus, we have the same relationship as
between source code (lilypond-code) and binaries (PDFs). Please have a
look at GPL-v3 §6 "Conveying Non-Source Forms": "You may convey a
covered work in object code form under the terms of [...] " whereby §1
says that '“Object code” means any non-source form of a work'.
(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.de.html*)*
It is totally clear, that the PDF contains the score in form of printer
commands and that both, the source and the PDF refer to the same 'music.
Hence, from the viewpoint of the GPL text itself, the PDF is not only
output, but a derivative work.
The only thing I am asking for is a clarifying statement of the
copyright owners, that the copyleft effect of OLL (and Lilypond) does
not affect the using code so that these arguments do not work
[...]
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
The inability to recognize the difference between a program and the
output of a program puzzles me.
I like this 'quotation' ;-)
Sincerely,
Carl
Sincerely,
Karsten
--
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/
