On 5/18/10 2:55 PM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:24:19PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 18. Mai 2010, um 21:53:17 schrieb Graham Percival:
>>> I can't immediately find any notice for Internals, so let's just
>>> make it public domain to avoid the hassle. Unless you really
>>> *want* to start modifying the scheme procedures that generate the
>>> IR (which would be excellent if you were interested), in which
>>> case we could make it FDL just to give you something to do.
>>
>> Actually, the IR is a derivative work of the source code, so shouldn't it be
>> GPL, then?
>
> It depends on how strong the term "derivation" is in whatever
> legal jurisdiction would apply. I'm not convinced that it would
> necessarily be GPL, but to avoid yet more backseat lawyering,
> sure, let's explicitly make Internals "GPLv3 or higher".
Dang, I was just getting set to make the legal arguments, and you took the
wind out of my sails!
BTW, I agree.
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
