On Sep 22, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Karsten Reincke <k.rein...@fodina.de> wrote: > On 22.09.20 14:58, Tim McNamara wrote: >>> On Sep 22, 2020, at 4:30 AM, Karsten Reincke <k.rein...@fodina.de> >>> <mailto:k.rein...@fodina.de> wrote: >>> Dear Carl; >>> >>> here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy: >>> >> >> <snip> >> >> If I use Emacs to write a letter to my Aunt Tillie, even though Emacs is >> licensed under the GPL my letter to Aunt Tillie remains copyrighted and >> private. [...] > Unfortunately, you are mixing the levels of licensings here: > > If you wrote a letter to aunt Tilly which included a sentence provided by my > famous text library to write wonderful letters to aunt Tilli (if such a lib > really existed, I of course would have licensed it under the GPL!) and if you > therefore had not to type the complete text by yourself, THEN your letter > would have to be distributed under the terms of the GPL too - not because, > you used the emacs, but because you included parts of my GPL licensed letter > lib and the copyleft effect it established. > > That's point here: If I included the OLL into my musical work by using the > compiler option lilypond -I ./oll my-score.ly, the my work depends on OLL, > not because I use lilypond, but because I functions of the OLL. > Dear Karsten-
And, again, I must disagree. A differentiation exists between the GPL software and input/output files used with/resulting from the operation of the software. Neither your .ly or .ily file nor the various output options produced by Lilypond are required to be released under the GPL or its variants. Such a requirement would just be silly and would result in the termination of the use of free software everywhere, practically overnight. Your input may include Scheme or other code to customize the performance of Lilypond for your specific purposes, but that is part of your input file and is not part of Lilypond or openlilylib and thus not subject to GPL or other such licenses. Copywrite, performance rights, etc., would apply consistent with your local laws. >> This is the sort of attack that the GPL and free software has been subjected >> to multiple times over decades. It has all been seen and resolved before. > It is regrettable that the same methods are used here that the free software > community has had to experience for so long, namely personal discrediting as > an "argument" in posts without any salutation and any greetings. > Nevertheless, there is ever a way to come back to the free and respectful > discussion. > I apologize for being an American and just getting to the point. It’s how we do things and in this culture is not usually considered rude in non-socializing settings. I recognize that YMMV and in other cultures our style is considered rude. It may not be your intent, but your argumentation reads like an attack on free software via Lilypond/openlilylib in particular. You seem to be seeing obstacles that in practical senses do not exist. Can you identify any cases in which what you are describing has happened in any enforceable manner? Hypotheticals can be informative but rarely if ever definitive. What you are describing has been discussed many times before, in several venues in which I have had slight involvement, and has been settled time and again. I have even committed the error I see in your writing. Software development under the GPL has requirements that are not applied to the input or output of that software in use cases.
