Re: Potential LSR licensing violations

[Luca Fascione]

Hum. It seems to me this is greyer that what you say.

gcc transforms program.c into a.out

Your access to a.out gives you rights to access program.c

s/gcc/lilypond/; s/program.c/score.ly/; s/a.out/out.pdf/;

I see very little difference.

More importantly, what would lawyers and judges from various legislative
systems think about this? Our opinion counts up to a point (which is very
insignificant).

I suspect it's not as clear cut as you make it.

I am not a lawyer either. This message is not legal advice

L

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, 13:47 Jean Abou Samra, <jean@abou-samra.fr> wrote:

> > Le 20/10/2022 12:59 CEST, Luca Fascione <l.fascione@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Or you remove it, or you reimplement it
>
>
> Well yes.
>
>
> > I think having GPL content in the lsr is the least desirable in the long
> term, because either folks using it won't notice, or they might find
> themselves unable or unwilling to use GPL as part of their content.
>
>
> Perhaps.
>
>
> > I'm not clear what it means to have GPL source in a sheet of which you
> have the pdf, it would seem to imply you'd have access to the whole
> Lilypond source for it, maybe, if you asked for it. A publisher might be
> unwilling to accept such terms, maybe
>
>
> No; the GPL puts no restrictions on the output of the program,
> only on the program itself and modified versions (and compiled
> versions of it, but I really don't think compiling to PDF would
> count, because the purpose of a PDF is to be viewed, not to be
> executed like an executable produced by a C compiler). Cf.
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL
>
> LilyPond does embed a tagline, but it's so short you'd have trouble
> claiming copyright on its text. The only thing in the output PDF
> that could be considered copyrighted from LilyPond is the glyphs
> from the Emmentaler font, and this is covered in the LICENSE file:
>
>   * The files under mf/ form a font, and this font is dual-licensed
>     under the GPL+Font exception and the SIL Open Font License (OFL).
>     A copy of the OFL is in the file LICENSE.OFL.
>
>     The font exception for the GPL stipulates the following exception:
>
>       If you create a document which uses fonts included in LilyPond,
>       and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the
>       document, then this font does not by itself cause the resulting
>       document to be covered by the GNU General Public License.  This
>       exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the
>       document might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
>       If you modify one or more of the fonts, you may extend this
>       exception to your version of the fonts but you are not obliged
>       to do so.  If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception
>       statement from your version.
>
>
> In other words, everything is done properly so that an output PDF
> from LilyPond is not covered by the GPL.
>
> However, if you use the -dembed-source-code option to embed your
> source in the PDF, then the source remains under whatever license
> you distribute it, independently from the graphical content of the
> PDF. If it's adapted from source code found in LilyPond, it must be
> GPL.
>
> IANAL (I should have said this on all my previous messages)
>