Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> schrieb:
>
>
>Anyway, back to the key issue -- would you like me to draft an email to
>the
>Software Freedom Law Center? The fact that this issue is of concern
>also to
>people in the TeX community makes me feel that it's something they
>should
>probably be alerted to.
>
Yes, I think that's a good idea.
This whole discussion shows that everybody seems to have a different
understanding of the situation. So it would be good to have qualified feedback
and maybe support.
My suggestion would be to either have a sort of "lilypond license" or (better)
an explicit exception/clarification stating that the use of functions defined
in the LilyPond distribution (either implicit or through an explicit include)
do not require the user's LilyPond source files to be distributed under the
GPL. Maybe with an explanation that this is because user's .ly files don't
constitute source code from which an application can be compiled.
Best
Urs
>_______________________________________________
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
