On 2020/05/01 22:19:38, hanwenn wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:58 PM <mailto:v.villen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 2020/05/01 12:12:40, dak wrote: > > > That being said, the situation regarding Scorio, a proprietary entity > > using Free > > > Software as a component of delivering a web-based service with > > non-disclosed > > > components, is _exactly_ the reason Artifex chose the AGPL as a basis > > for their > > > business model selling commercial Ghostscript licenses. > > > > And since there is no (as far as I know) contractual, or even simply > > practical, obligation tying us to Scorio, this is _also_ exactly why > > LilyPond itself ought to follow the same way IMO. > > > > Relicensing LilyPond as AGPL for the future 2.22 branch (or even 3.0 if > > that, combined with all current optimization work, may be as good a > > reason as any for a major version bump) should be on a the table, even > > independently of the GhostScript situation. (That goes for many > > free-software programs actually, which date back from before the SaaS > > trend and should now consider switching to AGPL; there even were some > > talks of merging AGPL into GPLv4 in the future, though the past few > > months have put many things on hold.) > > I don't want to relicense LilyPond under the AGPL. > > -- > Han-Wen Nienhuys - mailto:hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
I am actually with Han-Wen here. Ultimately, a license should draw the line you are willing to insist on. Pursuing GPL breaches is already a tricky proposition (and essentially only reasonable for significant copyright holders: the FSF cannot pitch in here since they have no standing). Tracking down distributions of LilyPond in a legally convincing manner is hard enough. Evidence for running as a service is just too ephemeral. I don't want to go there myself. https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/
