Re: Copyright issues

[Joseph Wakeling]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 08-09-2009 om 13:16 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Jan
> Nieuwenhuizen:
> 
>> Not only out-of-date, but also /wrong/.  I just checked our sources,
>> a very early one and the one that was claimed to be packaged
>>
>>    git show release/{1.0.1,2.2.2}:{COPYING,main.cc}
> 
> git show release/{1.0.1,2.2.2}:{COPYING,lily/main.cc

There are several possible sources of this confusion.

First: nowhere in the LP source can I find the typical notice that the
FSF recommends/requests in the 'How to Apply These Terms to your new
program' appendix to the GPL.

The notice in the COPYING file is technically unambiguous but is so
atypical as to not necessarily be clear.

Second: Lilypond is part of the GNU project and GNU programs typically
have the 'or later' option, and indeed there is a perception that they
will upgrade to the latest GPL by default.

Third -- and this is really important: Lilypond's source code and other
files lack often copyright/licensing notices.  This is explicitly
contrary to the policies of the GNU project:
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices.html#License-Notices

I gather there is a complete list of Lilypond contributors but are there
records of who contributed what?

Best wishes,

    -- Joe