On 03/29/2013 10:39 PM, Urs Liska wrote: > First of all, I think we have quite a consensus on what we intend - which is > a good start.
Yup. :-) > I slightly disagree, although your considerations are valuable and give some > good insights in the situation. > I think the 'ambiguity' Joe is talking about is the ambiguity of LilyPond's > input files being 'user documents' and at the same time compilable source > code. Interestingly, it seems that TeX people are developing similar licensing concerns -- see e.g.: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/69007/the-gpl-and-latex-packages > I would say that the whole LilyPond input file should be considered as a > 'user document', and that the author should be completely free to decide upon > its licensing, whether or not he uses included functions from LilyPond's > distribution. > But as this discussion shows it's not really clear how GPL's licensing model > applies for that somewhat ambiguous situation. So it might actually be > necessary to clarify that. The problem is that while I think we can all agree on _intent_, the strict letter of the license may mandate something different. This is not easy to understand and seems to me to be very much a niche case -- your remark that .ly input files can be simultaneously both user documents and source code seems to me to capture the essence of the problem, which is shared with TeX. I feel that possibly the best solution here is probably to approach the Software Freedom Law Center and ask their advice. If people are interested in taking that approach I will draft an email (which could be sent by me or by someone closer to the core of the project, depending on preference). _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
