On 2020/05/02 09:49:44, hahnjo wrote: > On 2020/05/01 06:28:56, hanwenn wrote: > > I suggest we make this an option that you have enable explicitly. > > done > > > If it is enabled, we'd have to change the --license output to say AGPL as > well. > > I thought about this and decided against it: > 1. LilyPond stays under GPL, even if the whole may be AGPL. > 2. I don't see a good option to find out the license of the library we link to. > 3. It's not our business of giving legal advice. Instead I added a warning to > the configure option "Beware of licensing implications!"
If it is a compile time option that actually links stuff (and the headers suggest that), we should add something like This version of LilyPond has been compiled and linked with a version of Ghostscript licensed under the AGPL. to the --license text. The implications are then for the user to find out. We should also add this to the license information in the documentation (namely that --license should give you the information whether there is the Ghostscript API linked in which case additional terms and conditions apply). Yes, this kind of stuff is a pain. But it's probably less pain in the end to be proactive about it. Our main duty is making sure that users know what terms they are dealing with so that the buck stops at the user rather than at us. https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/
