David Kastrup wrote:
> Jeff Barnes <jbarnes...@yahoo.com> writes: > >> I don't think that's necessarily applicable to Lily. The end > product >> being distributed is paper (or perhaps a pdf file). I don't think the >> GPL extends to that, does it? > > Of course copyright extends to paper, but not to programmatic output. > It would extend to embedded fonts, but IIRC, they are licensed > differently. Or at least they would, if there were interest. If the use of the fonts were covered by LilyPond's license, that would pretty much kill using LilyPond for anything at a publishing house, wouldn't it? Or am I misunderstanding you? Does distributing a pdf of Lily's output potentially mean you have to make Lily's source, the .ly file, or any other artifact the user created using Lily available under GPL? What do I have to provide to satisfy the LilyPonds licensing requirements if I wanted to distribute sheet music I wrote using LilyPond to engrave? >> But most forward thinking publishing companies would give the source >> code back. After all, their core business isn't <edit>LilyPond</edit>, it's >> publishing. >> >> Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :) > > You don't want to help the competition. Perhaps with the passing of the old guard old ideas will die. It's not a matter of helping the competition, because the real competition is over content. Open standards and tools help focus attention on the business of publishing content and less on the tools. A company wouldn't have to release its \tweaks, \overrides, etc. and therefore still keep the proprietary look of its published music. Jeff _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
