Francisco Vila <paconet....@gmail.com> writes: > 2011/3/20 Peter Chubb <pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au>: >> On 20/03/2011, at 7:55 PM, Francisco Vila <paconet....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I've not checked, but is the license compatible with that of lilypond? >>> A simple line stating "this file has the same license as the lilypond >>> package" would serve. >> >> It's released under GPL version 2.0 >> Its copyright is held by myself and by my employer, NICTA, who >> reserve the right to release it under other licences at other times, >> and who wish the notice of copyright in the file to be retained. > > I am not an expert and can not decide if we can include it given that > discrepancy.
Not likely to work well. It is not even clear that Peter can release/distribute it under GPL version 2.0 unless it will work unmodified with a version of Lilypond released under GPL version 2.0. If it doesn't, the question is whether it counts as being a derivative of Lilypond. If Peter and/or his employer can't be persuaded to release this as GPL3+ (which does not touch their right to release and distribute it, in parallel, under any license they want to unless the code depends on the work of others), I strongly suggest not distributing it with the rest of Lilypond since any "crosspollination", namely people using the code, its structure, documentation and whatever else will constitute a licensing violation of Peter's and his empoyer's licensing choice. Since that is an accident waiting to happen even if inclusion of articulate.ly could conceivably count as "mere aggregation", we need to steer clear. Any other GPLvx.0 only (where x includes 3) bombs waiting to happen in the Lilypond code base? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
