Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Alexander Kobel]

On 03/29/2013 05:39 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
<large snip/>
> Now take a programming language as another example (PHP and Python are 
> explicitely _not_ distributed under the GPL BTW).
> The interpreter is GPLed by group A, as well as some libraries.
> User B writes a program in that language. This program is considered a 'user 
> document', and the GPL doesn't affect it - User B can publish the program in 
> any way he likes, with or without source code.
> User C writes a program, but uses functions from the GPLed libraries. That 
> forces him to release his program under the GPL too.
<large snip/>

Uh, wait a second.  As most people, IANAL, but to my understanding:

User B is allowed to give away the source code in any form, and the 
binary under non-GPL code /if and only if/ it does not come with parts 
of group A's libraries compiled in.  If, e.g., inline function calls are 
replaced by library code, or a library is statically linked into the 
binary, I would assume this enforces GPL to the binary.  And this is 
exactly what will happen in practice, if e.g. the stdlibs were GPL'ed.

On the other hand, user C /should/ be allowed to distribute source code 
under whatever license he wants to /as long as he doesn't ship the GPL 
libraries with it./  It's useless without them, but anybody who wants to 
run or compile the code is free to download the necessary GPL'ed stuff.
However, even user C may freely without any constraints give away the 
/output/ of the program he has written and compiled.


Translated to LilyPond, IMHO this means:

- A user may give away his .ly file, if he did not copy-paste from 
Lily's source files.  Importing standard .ly's is okay (like \include 
"english.ly"), as long as the english.ly is not shipped with the user's 
file.
- A user may give away the PDF/PNG/PS/Inkscape-handtuned SVG/MIDI, since 
it is the output of his "program" written in the "LilyPond language". 
The PDF/... does not contain any GPL'ed stuff in it - in particular, no 
LilyPond code.  Very similar to the situation that I can distribute a 
text document (or even a .ly file) I've written using the GPL'ed Emacs, 
unless I quote part of Emacs' source code in there.  (I agree with Tim.)
@Joseph: I can see no difference in \include'ing a LilyPond file and 
calling a bash built-in function in a shell script, just because one is 
explicit and the other isn't.  Again, unless you ship bash along with it.


Or am I totally wrong here?


Best,
Alexander