> An individual source file is an individual work.
I have almost stopped reading here – this assumption is simply
incorrect. Right now, there are 6322 files which in total represent
GNU LilyPond.
> What happens if I decide to add a file under a BSD licence?
Code contributed to GNU LilyPond will *always* be under the GPL. You
can't change the license afterwards. This is one of the central
mantras of the GPL and prevents malicious people or companies from
severely disabling a software project. What is possible, however, is
that you add another license to your contributed code. What is also
possible is that you decide that a future, different version (that
sufficiently deviates from the contributed code) gets another,
possibly incompatible license. However, you cannot revoke the already
contributed code.
> You yourself said "The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_
> _whole_", that "whole", legally BEING THE BINARY.
This is also an incorrect assumption.
> Otherwise the GPL truly would be viral, as detractors like to claim,
> seizing ownership of works that their creators explicitly did NOT
> place under the GPL.
Please, PLEASE get educated what the GPL does and does not.
> The GPL does not (no free licence does) give you the permission to
> alter someone else's licence. That includes altering the copyright
> notice.
This is again incorrect. A copyright notice and a license a two
completely different things.
Werner
