Dear ML members;
The thread becomes longer and longer. Hence I am going to summarize my
concerns and won't repeat myself never again:
1) In the beginning, there was the ask of Urs to be supported by
developing OLL because he wants to reduce his efforts. For making OLL a
little more welcoming, I proposed either to re-license OLL under the
LGPL or to add something like an 'include exception' (for getting the
similar protection just as the GPL with classpath exception did for Java
developers using OpenJDK). Additionally, I suggested to become a
contributor if and when such a clarification has been realized. This
proposal seems to be rejected. Hence I withdraw my offer.
2) Most of you who see my concerns as ridiculous have in mind, that the
PDF created by Lilypond is only the output, not another form of the
Lilypond code, just as the letter written for aunt Tilly is not covered
by the word processor.
Here I clearly disagree: Lilypond describes itself as a compiler taking
text written in the LilyPond programming language and compiling this
text as PDF and/or as midi file. (https://lilypond.org/text-input.html).
Thus, it does not meet the structure of writing a letter to aunt Tilly.
The GPL-v3 itself defines, that 'the “source code” for a work means the
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code”
means any non-source form of a work.' §1
(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html) A pdf file contains printer
commands to visualize music. It is a text file too. Thus, one could at
least argue that the PDF file is the object code of the lilypond source
code.
Hence, it is not inherently and intuitively clear, that the PDF is the
autonomous output and has nothing to do with the input of the compiler
'Lilypond'.
3) If lilypond-code is source-code of a programming language and if it
can include/use other code licensed under a strong copyleft license then
it has to be distributed under the same terms, even if it is distributed
in form of object code (§6 GPL-v3) The relationship between the lilypond
code of a piece of music and the code being included / used for
compiling it is the same as the relationship between java code and for
example the openjdk library: Writing a java program becomes more easy
for me, because I can use the preliminary work of those programmers, who
implemented hashes, arrays, etc into the OpenJDK lib. OpenJDK is
licensed under GHPL-v3. But for not enforcing the using code to be
licensed under the GPL too, openjdk is released under the GPL with
classpath exception. This can simply transferred to OLL: I could more
easily write my lilypond music code, because I could use the preliminary
OLL work of Urs etc. Unfortunately, OLL does not offer such an
exception. Hence I have to accept, that my music code (sic!) has to be
distributed under the terms of the GPL-v3 too, because OLL is licensed
under the GPL.
4) Point 2 and 3 together can be used to argue, that also a distributed
pdf file compiled by lilypond has also to be licensed under the GPL.
5) I've learned, that all(?) of you consider this an untenable if not
silly position and that the PDFs and midi-files compiled by Lilypond are
never affected by the strong copyleft effect of the GPL. That's good to
hear. But I don't understand, why - under this circumstances - it should
be garbage to add a respective clarifying statement (the 'include
clause' or however you want to name it), if it is at least partially
conceivable that such a position will be taken and if all of you do not
want to use / establish its consequences. But that's my problem.
6) For the future
- I won't come back to you with this issue
- I unfortunately cannot work on the further development of the OLL
- I won't use OLL to minimize my risk
- I will use Lilypond ...
- but I won't distribute my essential work in form of lilypond code
- and reduce its distribution in form of PDFs to an absolute minimum
for minimizing my risk.
And as far as I understood you correctly, none of you will try to force
me to publish it under the terms of the GPL. That's also good to hear.
Overall, that's not the best result we could get, but it is a result.
With best wishes and sincere thanks for the wonderful Lilypond Composer
environment
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/