On 03/29/2013 05:39 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
<large snip/>
Now take a programming language as another example (PHP and Python are
explicitely _not_ distributed under the GPL BTW).
The interpreter is GPLed by group A, as well as some libraries.
User B writes a program in that language. This program is considered a 'user
document', and the GPL doesn't affect it - User B can publish the program in
any way he likes, with or without source code.
User C writes a program, but uses functions from the GPLed libraries. That
forces him to release his program under the GPL too.
<large snip/>
Uh, wait a second. As most people, IANAL, but to my understanding:
User B is allowed to give away the source code in any form, and the
binary under non-GPL code /if and only if/ it does not come with parts
of group A's libraries compiled in. If, e.g., inline function calls are
replaced by library code, or a library is statically linked into the
binary, I would assume this enforces GPL to the binary. And this is
exactly what will happen in practice, if e.g. the stdlibs were GPL'ed.
On the other hand, user C /should/ be allowed to distribute source code
under whatever license he wants to /as long as he doesn't ship the GPL
libraries with it./ It's useless without them, but anybody who wants to
run or compile the code is free to download the necessary GPL'ed stuff.
However, even user C may freely without any constraints give away the
/output/ of the program he has written and compiled.
Translated to LilyPond, IMHO this means:
- A user may give away his .ly file, if he did not copy-paste from
Lily's source files. Importing standard .ly's is okay (like \include
"english.ly"), as long as the english.ly is not shipped with the user's
file.
- A user may give away the PDF/PNG/PS/Inkscape-handtuned SVG/MIDI, since
it is the output of his "program" written in the "LilyPond language".
The PDF/... does not contain any GPL'ed stuff in it - in particular, no
LilyPond code. Very similar to the situation that I can distribute a
text document (or even a .ly file) I've written using the GPL'ed Emacs,
unless I quote part of Emacs' source code in there. (I agree with Tim.)
@Joseph: I can see no difference in \include'ing a LilyPond file and
calling a bash built-in function in a shell script, just because one is
explicit and the other isn't. Again, unless you ship bash along with it.
Or am I totally wrong here?
Best,
Alexander
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
