> The LSR is advertised as being released under the public domain.
> [...]
>
> The following exceptions apply:
>
> * It does not apply to input files (contained in the directory
> tree Documentation/snippets/); these are in the public domain.
> [...]
>
> So far, so good. However, take this snippet:
>
> https://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=102
>
> It begins with 300 lines of code that used to be in the LilyPond
> repository, released under the GPL, before they were considered
> legacy and moved to a snippet. I am pretty sure this violates the
> GPL. 300 lines looks too much for fair use law to apply, doesn't
> it?
Assuming that it is ok with <jann...@gnu.org>, we can put his
outdated, GPLed code into the public domain. Harm, do you remember
the history of this snippet? [For such historical research it would
be great if the LSR was actually a git repository that gets eventually
mapped to a database by a script. Sebastiano, is there any chance for
such a thing?]
I guess the opposite happens, too: there are probably some snippets
that have been incorporated into LilyPond code over the years. Such
code must be sufficiently rewritten so that the GPL can be applied.
> What should we do about these snippets? Delete them? Introduce an
> exception "snippets are in the public domain unless stated
> otherwise" and add headers to them stating they are under the GPL?
This sounds like a good temporary solution. However, I suggest that
we either get permission by the author to change the license,[*] or
the code gets rewritten eventually so that the 'correct' license can
be applied (again).
Werner
[*] Here comes the benefit of transferring the copyright to the FSF,
which can handle such things without having to ask the original
author AFAIK. LilyPond, however, inspite of being a GNU project,
doesn't ask contributors for such a copyright transfer.
