On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:46:21AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Peter Chubb <lily.u...@chubb.wattle.id.au> writes: > > > I'll do it if I have to to get it merged, but i was hoping it wouldn't > > be necessary. > > The GPLv3 states under 5 "Conveying modified source versions"
I don't see articulate.ly as a modified source version, unless I misunderstand that term. > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this > License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This > License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 > additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, > regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no > permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not > invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. To clarify, this only refers to something called "modofied source version", right? I mean, the docs are under GPL FDL 1.3+; this paragraph doesn't somehow require that the docs are placed under GPLv3, right? > > Graham> Isn't that precisely the question? You wrote: "It is not even > > Graham> clear that Peter can release/distribute it under GPL version > > Graham> 2.0 unless it will work unmodified with a version of Lilypond > > Graham> released under GPL version 2.0" > > > > It will so work. It was written to use the public interfaces provided > > by version 2.12, which is GPL version 2.0. > > If it is written using _public_ interfaces, it can be reasonably > considered an independent work and distributed separately. As I claim. > But making > it an _integral_ part of Lilypond will not be feasible. You're talking about moving the code into a C++ performer, right? I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about putting it in ly/, as an optional include. That's not "integral". > And if you think this kind of nonsense is stifling industry and > innovation rather than furthering it, don't tell me. I think this is nonsense, not because of the copyright law (although that certainly *is* nonsense!), but because as far as I can see, articulate.ly only uses public interfaces[1], is not an integral part of lilypond, and thus all these concerns are not valid. [1] with that slight quibble about the 4-6 lines of scheme code that he copied from FeatherDurations or whatever, which I believe isn't even called at the moment. Those should be removed or rewritten. > That's preaching to the choir. Tell your congressman. Neither Peter nor I have congressmen. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user