Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Anthonys Lists]

On 02/04/2013 15:04, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 03/30/2013 01:02 AM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
> > 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.
> If I write a computer program which uses functions from a GPL'd library, it
> doesn't matter whether I distribute an executable or just source code, and it
> doesn't matter whether I distribute the source code alongside the GPL'd
> libraries or as an individual file.  It's a derivative work under the GPL and
> must be licensed accordingly when distributed.
>
> See: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
This feels just flat out wrong to me! I note that the faq mentions Java 
which is a COMPILED language, and you are distributing a .java 
executable which probably does contain a load of library code linked in. 
And it references Perl modules, again implying you are distributing 
other peoples' work mixed with your own. So imho this faq is discussing 
the clear scenario where your source pulls other peoples' code in before 
distribution. imho, if you write a computer program which uses functions 
from a GPL library (by the way, what is "a GPL library"?) you can quite 
happily distribute the SOURCE under a restrictive licence. Indeed, this 
legal claim (that using functions creates a derivative work) is exactly 
the claim that Oracle tried with Android and Java, and they came a royal 
cropper with it.

But as a simple matter of law, if I write a load of text and DON'T COPY 
other stuff into it, then my work is NOT a derivative of anything and I 
can licence it how the heck I like.

So if your lilypond file is a single monolithic document, and you wrote 
ALL of it (even if that "all" includes things like "/include 
english.ly", then, AS A MATTER OF LAW your file is not a derivative work 
of lilypond, and the GPL is irrelevant - you can distribute it as a 
completely proprietary "you must not copy this work" file if you wish. 
(Obviously, if your lilypond work is not monolithic, but again, you 
wrote ALL of it, the same rule applies.)

The ONLY thing that can make your work subject to lilypond's GPL licence 
is whether or not it is a derivative work of lilypond. And if you 
haven't copied anything from lilypond into it, then your work is not 
derivative. /include directives are not enough to make a derivative work 
(plus, it's the *recipient* that actually carries out the include and 
makes the derivative). (And it's the LAW that determines whether a work 
is derivative - the FSF's faq merely lays out what they think the law is.)

Cheers,
Wol