Re: Potential LSR licensing violations

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> writes:

>> The LSR is advertised as being released under the public domain.
>> [...]
>>
>> The following exceptions apply:
>> 
>>   * It does not apply to input files (contained in the directory
>>     tree Documentation/snippets/); these are in the public domain.
>>     [...]
>> 
>> So far, so good. However, take this snippet:
>> 
>> https://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=102
>> 
>> It begins with 300 lines of code that used to be in the LilyPond
>> repository, released under the GPL, before they were considered
>> legacy and moved to a snippet.  I am pretty sure this violates the
>> GPL.  300 lines looks too much for fair use law to apply, doesn't
>> it?
>
> Assuming that it is ok with <janneke@gnu.org>, we can put his
> outdated, GPLed code into the public domain.

"Ask the author" is the correct solution here.

> I guess the opposite happens, too: there are probably some snippets
> that have been incorporated into LilyPond code over the years.  Such
> code must be sufficiently rewritten so that the GPL can  and be applied.

That is nonsensical.  PD code can be incorporated as part of a GPLed
code base.  When push comes to shove, the GPL relies on copyright as the
legal means to enforce compliance, and only the copyright holder of some
code can sue for compliance.

LilyPond is not a copyright-assigned project, so enforcement will always
be on a hit-and-miss basis, relying on the author of specific passages
to have an interest in pursuing legal measures.

> This sounds like a good temporary solution.  However, I suggest that
> we either get permission by the author to change the license,[*] or
> the code gets rewritten eventually so that the 'correct' license can
> be applied (again).

We don't need permission of the author to "change the license" from PD.
We are free to license in whatever manner we like.  But the only one who
can enforce any license is the original author, and when they release
something as PD, chances are that they are very much not interested in
pursuing legal steps on our behalf.  And we would have to prove that the
respective copy was taken from our licensed code base rather than the
original distribution of PD code, and that would be tricky without
significant modification.  And the copyright holder could hardly claim
real damages for PD code, so one would have to fall back on statutory
damages.

Essentially, this is going to be a disaster for enforcement purposes,
but permission by the original author is not going to make any
difference.

For the other direction (GPLed to PD), yes, we should check back with
the author.

> [*] Here comes the benefit of transferring the copyright to the FSF,
>     which can handle such things without having to ask the original
>     author AFAIK.  LilyPond, however, inspite of being a GNU project,
>     doesn't ask contributors for such a copyright transfer.

LilyPond is not considered a strategic part of GNU, one where the FSF
would consider taking legal measures for enforcing the licensing.

-- 
David Kastrup