Am 30. Oktober 2019 12:45:06 MEZ schrieb Karsten Reincke <k.rein...@fodina.de>: >Dear Elaine > >On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 18:13 -0700, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote: >> [...] >> It seems you think that, if you use code from the LSR as part of your >input >> files, that you are obligated to distribute both the input files and >the >> resulting PDF/MIDI files under the GPL. >YES, if the LSR snippet was licensed under the GPL (In fact, the LSR >snippets are >not licensed under the GPL, they are Public Domain, I know!) >> > >> One thing you state is clearly incorrect: "snippets are either >linked into the >> main code using the command #include “ABC.ly”..." No, this is >actually part of >> the reason why the openlilylib is structured the way it is, since the >LSR is >> explicitly NOT a library or set of libraries, and many people find >that >> annoying. openlilylib was started (as I understand it) by people who >do want a >> libary-based approach, since the LSR approach encourages lots of >duplication. > >I cannot say anything about the methods of OpenLilyLib - because I did >not find >any 'Hello World' example which I could compile on my machine (Ubuntu >19.10). >(This is another topic, which I want to ignore in this context.) >
openLilyLib may be awfully underdocumented, but there are usage examples all over the place, really. I think every package or module has an example next to it or a usage-wxamples directory... >But at least without beside using OpenLilyLib you have to methods to >use the LSR >snippets: either you save the snippet in your file tree and insert an >include >directive into your code which takes the path to that file as an >argument. Or you >copy the snippet literally and directly into your code. > > >> So, here we have the solution to your dilemma: don't copy them. > >Yeep, that's what I will do: as long as I am afraid to lose not only my >LilyPond >code (which I do not care), but the rights of my using scientific / >musical work, >I won't use any snippet which is license und er GPl. All other snippets >are ok. >And the LSR is a great help. > >> [...] Besides the debate about the letter of the law, then there is >the reality >> check part. >> >> Which is to say, you seem to think that someone who voluntarily >submitted >> content to the LSR as "public domain" is going to turn around and >state that, >> because that language is either inaccurate, or does not hold >relevance in their >> legal domain, they will take you to court to force you to comply with >the terms >> and distribute both your input files and resulting PDFs, or desist in >> distributing the work. >Yes and No. > >No, because I do not believe, that contributors to the LSR, later on, >change their >mind or want to attack us due to an infringement based on the weakness >of a local >legal system (But can we really be sure? Do you know that we have a lot >of patent >trolls and meanwhile also GPL trolls, who invented a business model on >suing users >because of a non-compliant use of a GPL licensed program?) > >And yes, because I believe in good systems. And if we minimize the >weakness of a >system, then we should do that. The weakness of the LSR is, that Europe >does not >know the idea of 'public domain' (based on the principle, that you >first have to >claim your copyrights before you grant any rights). In Europe, nearly >every work >has a copyright owner. Hence every snippet contributed by a European >citizen >legally is not correctly contributed. This could be healed by using the >CC0: It >also talks about the public domain, but it explicitly grants all rights >to the >users without requiring any service in return. > >Best regards Karsten -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
