I probably shouldn’t be saying anything about this because I’m not an expert in licensing. However, Mr. Karsten’s assertion that “my work depends on OLL, not because I use lilypond, but because I functions of the OLL” is wrong. It implies that the content of a Lilypond file is dependent on Lilypond or OLL. The content of a Lilypond file is a musical score (that uses Lilypond’s syntax), which is an independent creation that can be formatted in other programs or by hand. Lilypond’s syntax is not part of the creation, but only the interface to use its formatting options. The presence of OLL doesn’t make an artistic work less independent either, since it only extends Lilypond’s formatting capabilities (which are all independent of the musical work as well). Only in the situation where a musical creation is indeed dependent on OLL to exist (say, an algorithmic composition that needs to run OLL every time is executed, where OLL provides certain predefined pitch, rhythmic or timbre combinations) is where I would be slightly concerned especially if I were to sell and distribute this piece of algorithmic music (that would definitely need OLL and Lilypond to “exist” and would have to be distributed as well). But OLL (nor Lilypond) doesn’t provide any of this, and this hypothetical case doesn’t apply.
Regards, Martín. www.martinrinconbotero.com On 22. Sep 2020, 18:18 +0200, 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> 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. > > > > 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. > KR > -- > 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/
