Am 31. Oktober 2016 01:43:26 GMT-07:00, schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > >> To make what I consider an apt analogy, using gcc doesn't require any >> programs you create to be GPL'd. > >GCC has a special exception in the licensing exempting the startup >stubs >and other fixed material it might place into the code from requiring >licensing. The generated code as such is exempt from requiring a >license anyway. > >Similar concerns for LilyPond would hold for library/LSR code bundled >into the PDF file as source (we have an option for that or an issue for >creating such an option). And fonts in extractable forms of embedding. > >So it's not a no-brainer, but the concerns voiced by Urs are mostly >incorrect.
Maybe not concretely enough, so I'll give a concrete example. Imagine the following project: An edition project is to be made available as - printed copies - PDF files - a Git repository The repository contains among others - encoded music - Scheme functions created for the project - Scheme functions created using included code from LilyPond and GPLed openLilyLib - Scheme functions created by modifying functions copied from LilyPond Doesn't the GPL prevent me from making that repository available under, say, a non-free CC license or under a no-license like "you may read the code and use it to produce scores but you may not redistribute a modified version"? I don't think one can that easily say "it's all documents and the license doesn't apply to that". Urs -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
