On 19 Jan 2012, at 21:58, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 11:05 -0800, Bernardo Barros wrote: >>> Open software people tend to consider artists as being >>> equivalent to programmers, so they think artists >>> should starve. I have no sympathy with that view. >>> Obviously. Knowledge should be free, Yale to the >>> contrary. Art shouldn't be free until the artist gets his. >> >> The source code of the lilypond score is not the `music' or even >> `art', so maybe people get confused. > > That is true of the program code, but not the data.
According to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, computer programs are protected as literary works as in the Berne Convention: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html#P56_5626 > The > document must carry a copyright notice if it contains > the notes, because it is the composition written in a > form of musical notation. The complete source, published > with a copyright notice, would copyright the piece. > Published without the notice, all copyright would be > lost. This is not the case in the US since 1989: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice Hans _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
