Re: About the new "Gigsaw".

[Philippe Hezaine]

Valentin Villenave a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Philippe Hezaine
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > 1) You changed a few of the midi.scm for the compile.
> > > > 2) You delete (so easily) the header in the control track
> > > > et voilà. Bye bye the GPL. You have a hijacked midi file.
> > > > At least one quickly recognize a Lilypond's sheet music.
> > > > But for its midi file? Especially for the Gigsaw and its potential?
> > > > How the FSF or any Floss supporter can check the GPL?
> > > > Nothing.
>
> First of all, I'm not sure that a MIDI file made using your
> GPL-licensed 'Gigsaw' application would automatically be protected by
> the GPL. For example, it is perfectly okay to print proprietary scores
> using LilyPond, or to print books using a GPL-licensed font.

Yes. I understood that and agreed. No problem for the users.

> The Gigsaw itself, however, could be "stolen" from you. But IMHO this
> is a risk for *any* piece of software (either free or proprietary). As
> you may know, a GPL violation is punished as severely as a "normal"
> copyright violation: http://gpl-violations.org/
>
> (Of course, this requires the perpetrator to get caught -- but then
> again, the same problem goes for proprietary works.)

This is my torment. That a firm uses Lily and the Gigsaw for sells drums
patterns. For instance I've seen some time ago on the Web a collection
of more than 10 CDs which contained drums patterns for each style. Each
CD (hence each style) costs 150€ and the copyright was 2005! I don't
want to brag about the Gigsaw - in fact this is Lily who is working -
but I think it should be able to do the same now. Do you understand me?
Indeed the Gigsaw is like a mathematical progression. More the BASES
fills up with the patterns more the possibilities increases (may be with
the risk to get lost though)

> > > > At least nothing "rock solid" that i know. (Unless my post to
> > > > LAU-user with the thread :Lilypond's midi output" put my finger on it?)
> > > > Is this issue going in touch with the GPL? Again I don't know.
> > > > Perhaps I'm too imaginative, paranoid or not enough deeply free?
>
> Some personal thoughts:
>
> - The minute you publish something (a program, a music score, a book
> or a blog post), your work is at risk of being "stolen". There is
> absolutely _no_ way of making sure that it won't happen. (No matter
> how hard Apple, Sony &co have tried, with DRM technology etc.)
>
> - Free licenses are (some kind of) an answer to that: by giving your
> public several freedoms, you encourage them not to abuse your work.
> It's a relationship made out of trust and respect.
>
> - If an (illegal) proprietary version of your work is ever published
> behind your back, either it will have zero success and it really
> doesn't matter, or it will have some success and in that case there's
> a good chance that you (or any LilyPonder who knows about you) will
> eventually hear about it, and then this would allow you to take action
> against that. (Besides, this would (a) demonstrate how good your
> program is, (b) give you quite a bit of publicity :-)

You keep up the sense of my question. How do you check a Lily midifile?
That's the reason why I wanted someone evaluates my work. Besides the 
not finished cuts it works perfectly at home.

> So, while there's always a risk, I believe it's so minimal that you
> have nothing to worry about.
>
> Cheers,
> Valentin

OK. Then I go ahead. Do I?

All the best.
--
  Phil.