Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> writes: > For the cases we're considering -- OLLib and the .ly files bundled > with Lilypond > -- the _simplest_ method that I can see is to license them > permissively. Boost, > Apache, BSD/MIT/X11 and the GNU All-Permissive Licence are all options here > (potentially LGPL as well, but then issues may re-arise the moment someone > copy-pastes a function rather than getting it via \include). But that's > bypassing the problem, rather than understanding it. > > Yes, most of us dedicated to free software prefer copylefting as much > as we can, but there are times when the simplicity and flexibility of > permissive licenses outweighs any possible protection, especially (as > here) where the likelihood of anyone incorporating the work into a > proprietary product is minuscule.
LilyPond is a GNU program and so follows the licensing policies of the GNU project. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
