> Am 2019-11-01 um 12:16 schrieb J Martin Rushton
> :
>
> On 01/11/2019 10:45, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
>> BTW there is _no_ copyright on the design of sheet music, even if some music
>> publishers claim it.
>
> This depends upon the country. In the UK: "The typographical
> arrangement of
On 01/11/2019 10:45, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
>
>
> BTW there is _no_ copyright on the design of sheet music, even if some music
> publishers claim it.
>
This depends upon the country. In the UK: "The typographical
arrangement of a published edition lasts for 25 years from first
publicatio
> Am 2019-10-31 um 03:15 schrieb Carl Sorensen :
>
> In the US, a typeface is not copyrightable. But a computer program that
> makes a font or its glyphs is copyrightable.
The "program code" of fonts is juristically not regarded a program, because it
is usually auto-generated by a design t
> On 31 Oct 2019, at 22:10, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
>>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 21:31, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
All those parts should be LGPL, and also included headers, I believe:
Not GPL, because that would legal technically force copyright
limitations on
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 21:31, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> All those parts should be LGPL, and also included headers, I believe:
>>> Not GPL, because that would legal technically force copyright
>>> limitations on the output, and not public domain, because then one
>>> could ex
> On 31 Oct 2019, at 21:31, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> All those parts should be LGPL, and also included headers, I believe:
>> Not GPL, because that would legal technically force copyright
>> limitations on the output, and not public domain, because then one
>> could exploit the inputs in ways
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 03:15, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/30/19, 5:13 PM, "Hans Åberg" wrote:
>>>
On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Carl Sorensen wrote:
The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other
licenses, I believe, because the proce
> On 31 Oct 2019, at 03:15, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/19, 5:13 PM, "Hans Åberg" wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>>
>>> The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other licenses, I
>>> believe, because the processed part remains in the o
On 10/30/19, 5:13 PM, "Hans Åberg" wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other licenses,
I believe, because the processed part remains in the output, and thus
copyrightable. Thus, they play the
Urs:
...
> One of the main issues we have at play here (and that has been discussed
> by others in this thread) is that tools like LilyPond and LaTeX blur the
> lines between source, program, and document.
>
> The arguments that are expressed *for* a requirement to license the PDF
> (etc.) file
Since I was off for nearly a day there may well be aspects I missed when
trying to read through the whole thread, but I have the feeling that
some thoughts still haven't been expressed.
Am 30.10.19 um 12:27 schrieb Urs Liska:
Sorry for being short: what you say is very much hiw I meant it but
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other licenses, I
> believe, because the processed part remains in the output, and thus
> copyrightable. Thus, they play the same role as the Bison skeleton file and
> GCC libraries
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 23:36, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
>>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 23:05, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>> Hans Åberg writes:
>>>
The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other licenses,
I believe, because the processed part remains in the
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 23:05, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Hans Åberg writes:
>>
>>> The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other licenses,
>>> I believe, because the processed part remains in the output, and thus
>>> copyrightable. Thus, they play the same rol
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 18:48, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> This says to me that you can consider LSR snippets as part of the
>> code used to create music (any music, not just your specific music).
>> You can then put your specific music in a separate file, with
>> separate copyr
On 10/30/19, 3:17 PM, "Hans Åberg" wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>>The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other
licenses, I believe, because the processed part remains in the output, and thus
copyrightable. Thus, they play th
On 10/30/19, 3:10 PM, "Hans Åberg" wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 18:48, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>> In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you
any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your
program. If the user uses your pro
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 23:05, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
>> The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other licenses,
>> I believe, because the processed part remains in the output, and thus
>> copyrightable. Thus, they play the same role as the Bison skeleton
>>
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:28, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/19, 3:17 PM, "Hans Åberg" wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>>
The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other licenses, I
believe, because the processed part remains in the
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 22:14, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>>The snippets should be LGPL for being includable under other licenses, I
>> believe, because the processed part remains in the output, and thus
>> copyrightable. Thus, they play the same role as the Bison skeleton file and
>> GCC libra
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 18:48, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>> In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any
>> say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program.
>> If the user uses your program to enter or convert her own data, the
>> copyright
On 10/30, Karsten Reincke wrote:
> 1) I did not refer to the libstdc or anything else for which indeed
> the gcc runtime exception can be used. I am talking about the a bit
> abstract case of using a GPL licensed library or module or snippet as
> base of ones work compiled by the GCC to complere th
From: Karsten Reincke
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 9:02 AM
To: Henning Hraban Ramm , lilypond-user
Cc:
Subject: Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL
On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 15:08 +0100, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
[...]
It’s the same if you publish a book using TeX:
No, it isn&#
On 10/30/19, 11:48 AM, "Karsten Reincke" wrote:
2) Your polemic attack is wrong and unfair. If you had read my posts
carefully,
you would know [and probably you know it, but withhold this aspect], that I
offered URS already the opportunity to integrate my coming lib - licens
On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 09:41 -0700, ma...@masonhock.com wrote:
> On 10/30, Karsten Reincke wrote:
> > Here, the analogy of gcc and Lilypond matches perfectly: As we are
> > must distribute binaries which are compiled by the gcc on the base a
> > GPL licensed source code, we must also distribute the
On 10/30, Karsten Reincke wrote:
> Here, the analogy of gcc and Lilypond matches perfectly: As we are
> must distribute binaries which are compiled by the gcc on the base a
> GPL licensed source code, we must also distribute the binaries (png)
> which are compiled by LilyPond on the base of a GPL l
On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 15:08 +0100, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
> [...]
> It’s the same if you publish a book using TeX:
No, it isn't.
> While original TeX is PD and some other parts have their own licenses, those
> never apply to the contents of your book or the PDF or printed version of it,
That
Am 2019-10-30 um 13:06 schrieb David Kastrup :
>
> You are correct that you cannot license the source under any license
> other than the GPL if you are going to distribute it containing GPL
> licensed snippets (the LSR snippets are PD, the Notation Reference
> contents GFDL). But the PDF reflecti
Am 30. Oktober 2019 12:45:06 MEZ schrieb Karsten Reincke :
>Dear Elaine
>
>On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 18:13 -0700, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote:
>> [...]
>> It seems you think that, if you use code from the LSR as part of your
>input
>> files, that you are obligated to distribute both the input fi
Karsten Reincke writes:
> Many thanks for your comment. It contains an important hint. BUt it is a bit
> apart
> from my crucial point:
>
> I am not arguing that my LilyPond work (or a snippet) is covered by
>the GPL because it is 'executed' by LilyPond. I argue that my code is
>covered by the
Karsten Reincke writes:
> On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 01:36 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Karsten Reincke writes:
>>
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > Hence, if I use a piece of software as library, snippet, or module,
>> > then I am using the advantage that I do not have to program that code
>> > by myself. I
Dear Elaine
On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 18:13 -0700, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote:
> [...]
> It seems you think that, if you use code from the LSR as part of your input
> files, that you are obligated to distribute both the input files and the
> resulting PDF/MIDI files under the GPL.
YES, if the LSR
Sorry for being short: what you say is very much hiw I meant it but not all.
I'll clarify later but am currently on the road. Maybe tonight of tomorrow.
Am 30. Oktober 2019 12:09:37 MEZ schrieb Karsten Reincke :
>Dear Urs;
>
>many thanks for your clever thoughts! You brought up a very seductive
Dear Urs;
many thanks for your clever thoughts! You brought up a very seductive argument,
which I therefore will only summarize here for being sure that I've understood
you
correctly. May I condense your line of argumentation in the following way?
You point out that there could be a function in
On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 01:36 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Karsten Reincke writes:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > Hence, if I use a piece of software as library, snippet, or module,
> > then I am using the advantage that I do not have to program that code
> > by myself. I am saving costs and time. A very go
On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 00:55 +, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 10/29/19, 5:46 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
> Karsten Reincke wrotes:
>
>[...]
> >
> > [4] But if a GPL licensed LilyPond snippet is used by another LilyPond
> > code (either by a functional call into the i
> From: Karsten Reincke
> To: lilypond-user
> Cc: k.rein...@fodina.de
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:06:32 +0100
> Subject: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL
> By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
> LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, an
On 10/29/19, 5:46 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
Karsten Reincke writes:
> By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
> LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
> to the original topic. During this dis
Karsten Reincke writes:
> On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 00:46 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> I disagree with your assessment that calling any code/function makes
>> the
>> work doing so a derivative of that code (that would concern using
>> OpenLilyLib code). [...]
>
> I agree with you, that
On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 00:46 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>
> I disagree with your assessment that calling any code/function makes
> the
> work doing so a derivative of that code (that would concern using
> OpenLilyLib code). [...]
I agree with you, that the question, when and how a piece o
ments alone
and basically comment only on that one:
Am 30.10.19 um 00:06 schrieb Karsten Reincke:
By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
to the original topic. During this discussion Harm stated, that „
Karsten Reincke writes:
> By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
> LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
> to the original topic. During this discussion Harm stated, that „maybe
> LSR should better use GPL 3, not this de
By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
to the original topic. During this discussion Harm stated, that „maybe
LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one (Public Domain)“.
Urs asked whether
43 matches
Mail list logo
