Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 04/02/2013 11:25 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Uh, so far I have just seen fantasizing about TeX users having similar
> concerns.

I did post a link before:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/69007/the-gpl-and-latex-packages

Sure, it's not a huge wellspring of concern, but as you say, that's ...

> Hardly surprising since in the TeX world the GPL is not used frequently.

I imagine that if it were more widely used there would probably have been some
kind of formal pronouncement on this issue years ago.

> Are you sure you are not getting carried away with a self-made view of
> the situation?

There is that risk. :-)  Look, let me try and calm things down: I am not seeing
this as some massive horror that is going to haunt Lilypond, if for no other
reason than that I can't see a single Lilypond developer trying to claim GPL
violation against a user distributing source for their scores.  By "warning
sign" I meant simply a sign that the concern is not unique to me, or to 
Lilypond.

I simply think this is a question to which it would be useful to have a concrete
answer.

However, I'll readily plead guilty to getting carried away in debating licensing
issues in general.  No just on this ocasion, either ... :-)

> Feel free to ask the SFLC, but I don't see the point in trying to spin
> this out of proportion before even doing so.

Any email I write will be calm and carefully laid out.  What I really, really
want is for my concerns to be proven unfounded -- the second best as far as I
can see is to get clear and useful advice.