[off-topic] re: Copyright/licensing action plan

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:34:46PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 10:11:54 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > > So basically, you are telling all package
> > > maintainers of all distributions to violate the copyright of all lilypond
> > > contributors.
> >
> > No, I am not telling them to do that.  I am saying that, if guile
> > 2.0 comes out and we have not switched, they should link to
> > guile-1.8 if they want to legally distribute lilypond.
> 
> Okay, and what do you think will happen in reality?

This thread isn't about reality.  The entire discussion is some
kind of twisted parody of sadomasochism where we rely on
thinly-veiled slurs instead of metal-studded whips.  In reality, I
think we'll relicense before it becomes an issue.  But the whole
point is arguing about what's legally required, because either we
enjoy it, or achieve some kind of sick pleasure from it.

... which, I guess, is still enjoying it.  But it sounds dirtier
if I say "sick pleasure".  Hmm, actually, I should add an
[off-topic] marker to this thread.

> I don't think 
> distributions will be willing to spend time and resources on providing 
> outdated software/libraries,

libc5?

> simply because lilypond wants old versions. I'd rather say
> lilypond will be dropped instead, citing licensing issues with
> lilypond.

I'm still not scared.  Everybody else gets lilypond directly from
the website.  If distributions decide not to support the software
their uses want, that's their problem.
 
> > Perhaps there is a problem of language here -- the word "must" is
> > very strong in English.  For example, "if x is greater than 5,
> > then it must be greater than 4".  "must" means that there is no
> > possibility of an alternate option.
> 
> What I didn't write down, but implicitly assumed was the half-sentence "if 
> we/they want to use the current, installed library versions". Then it is a 
> MUST.

Yes, well, you know what they say about making assumptions.

Look, don't blame me.  I'm not the person who decided to drive a
wedge between free software developers and cause hours of wasted
time.  This mess is squarely the FSF's fault.

> > I am not arguing that there *isn't* such a solid legal reason; I
> > have not spent an hour reading those licenses recently.  But at
> > the same time, I am not aware of any such reason.
> 
> The LGPLv3 also includes the patents clause and the anti-DRM clause,

Really?!?!  the library license which allows linking to
proprietary software still contains an anti-DRM clause?!

Wow, the BSD guys were right all along.

> On the other hand, all lilypond contributors -- by putting their code under 
> GPLv2only -- explicitly say that they do not agree to any additional 
> restrictions.

No.  We're saying that we want to improve lilypond, and that the
existing license is GPLv2only, and so we submit stuff under that
license.  The *implicitly* states that the code distributed in
lilypond has no additional restrictions, but anybody is free to
release their lilypond contributions under other licenses.

Cheers,
- Graham