-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 21. September 2009 18:49:18 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman: > In message <200909201334.52063.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold > Kainhofer <reinh...@kainhofer.com> writes > > >The LGPLv3 also includes the patents clause and the anti-DRM clause, which > >both add additional restrictions, which the GPLv2 does not have. > > > >On the other hand, all lilypond contributors -- by putting their code > > under GPLv2only -- explicitly say that they do not agree to any > > additional restrictions. > > Oops - haven't you got that backwards? If they put it under v2 ONLY, > aren't they saying they don't agree to any additional FREEDOMS
Both are right: They don't agree to additional FREEDOMS in the sense that the "user" is not free to choose GPLv2 or GPLv3, but they also don't agree to additional RESTRICTIONS: Using GPLv3 would add an additional restriction to the use (DRM, atent claues) and this is prohibited by GPLv2only. All users are be free to use GPLv2 applications in tivo-like machines and that freedom is whatI'm talking about. > >Thus lilypond can't link to any (L)GPLv3 library, which would add > > additional restrictions. > > such as allowing it to be distributed under v3? No byt linking to a LGPLv3 library, this does not require the application to be GPLv3. However, the LGPLv3 says that you can only link to it if you agree to the DRM- and patent clauses. That's the additional restrictions that LGPLv3 has compared to GPLv2. Thus linking to a LGPLv3 library takes aways rights (e.g. to legally prevent access by using DRM or to sue for patent infringement) that the GPLv2 provided. > (Yes I know I'm being a pedant! But that's why I think demanding > contributors use v2 *only* is a bad idea. So do I! I contribute to lilypond to support lilypond, not to be picky about copyrights. For example, I signed over all my KDE contributions to the KDE e.V. and additionally crossed out the paragraph that that contract becomes void under certain circumstances... Unfortunately, there is nothing like that for Lilypond. I did these contributions to support lilypond (and sometimes also because I needed them), so they should really help lilypond and not cause legal problems. > You're saying they can't grant > *more* *freedom* (if that's what they want).) The developers can of course grant more freedom to their own code. It's just that the default is GPLv2only and nobody cares about asking or explicitly giving more rights (which would result in a mess anyway, because you would need to track who changed which lines, etc.). Cheers, Reinhold - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKt9DWTqjEwhXvPN0RAlziAKCKDGKWRkYO9Bk8R7AkeIsLNEaU8gCgsVib Tzx7l+nikWxvJtPWHtn8y9c= =QWCl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
