Anthonys Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes: > If they DID relicence it, then it is copyrightable
Nonsense. An explicit license can be given for things not actually requiring a license for particular uses under current legal standards. It is a pledge "if you follow these rules, I won't drag you to court over use of this material", and if that explicit pledge is broken, the complaint is very likely to just get tossed without incurring significant costs. That is totally different from opining some material to not be copyrightable. You might need to convince a court explicitly then, and particularly in the U.S., that can be a rather expensive feat even if you prevail. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
