Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Anthonys Lists]

On 02/04/2013 23:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 11:57 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
> > On 02/04/2013 22:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> > > Indeed, and a consequence of distributing a "covered work" under
> > > GPL-incompatible terms is that you lose the permissions granted under that
> > > license.
> > EXCEPT EXCEPT EXCEPT THE LAW SAYS YOU *DON'T* *NEED* ANY PERMISSION !!!
> What, I don't need permission to use a computer program written by someone else
> that is still in copyright?

If your work does not include any of their work, then you don't need any 
permission to not copy their work! :-)
> I get to use the GNU Scientific Library _only_ because its authors have granted
> me permission to do so.  That permission is conditional on my adhering to a
> number of conditions.  One of those conditions is that if I distribute what the
> GPL refers to as a "covered work" -- in this case, a work based on the GNU
> Scientific Library, such as my little program -- I must do so under a
> GPL-compatible license.

And if you read the GPL, version 2 (I presume 3 has similar wording) 
says "the use of this work is outside the scope of this licence". The 
GPL explicitly rejects anything to do with the USE of the work.

It was YOU that said your source code did not include any part of the 
GSL. Therefore when you distribute your source code you do not need any 
permission to distribute the GSL, because you are not distributing the 
GSL. Therefore, because you are not distributing the GSL, you do not 
need the GPL's permission to not distribute!

> If I break that condition, I lose the permission granted to use the GNU
> Scientific Library.  That doesn't mean its authors can sue me for distributing
> my little piece of code under a proprietary license.  It means they can sue me
> if I continue to use the GNU Scientific Library.

And what law will they use to use you? Oh - that's right, they'll use 
copyright law!

At which point, they will have to show, to the Judge, that your work is 
LEGALLY a derivative of theirs.

Except you said it didn't contain any GSL code! Which means that, AS FAR 
AS THE LAW IS CONCERNED, it is NOT a derivative. Which means there is 
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING the GSL guys can do to stop you using their code. If 
the law says a licence is not necessary, then it doesn't matter what 
licence they used on their code, YOU DON'T NEED IT!
> > Sorry for shouting, but just go ask a lawyer. ANY lawyer with a half-way decent
> > grasp of copyright.
> I suggest it's not me who doesn't understand copyright, but you who doesn't
> understand the niceties of the GPL.  I'll happily accept proof that I'm wrong,
> but shouting at me (or making general assertions about the relative priority of
> the GPL versus the law) doesn't count as proof :-)
What I do know is that the GPL grants permissions that - absent the 
licence - you wouldn't have.

And if the law says you don't need those permissions, then you don't 
need that licence!

Let's say I write a licence that Joseph Wakeling owes me £500 per month 
for not using my code. I give you a copy. I now claim you owe me £500 
for the month of April. How am I going to enforce it?

I'm going to enforce it exactly the same way the GSL library people are 
going to enforce their licence for you not using their code - in other 
words, if either of us is stupid enough to try it, the Judge is going to 
laugh us out of court.

Actually, that seems to me to give you pretty much the question you want 
to ask SFLC or FSF or whoever it was.

"If I write a program - all my own work - which uses the public API to 
call a GPL library but does not include any code from that library, do I 
have to distribute the *source* code of my program under the GPL."

I can guarantee that the answer that comes back will be "you can use 
whatever licence you like because it's not a derivative work."

(Oh, by the way, my understanding of the GPL has changed a fair bit over 
the years. Mostly as a result of discussing the niceties on Groklaw, so 
I think most of my misunderstandings have been pretty much 
clue-by-four'd by now :-) But this isn't a case of understanding the 
GPL, it's a matter of understanding the law. The law says "you don't 
need a licence" so that's the end of it!)

Cheers,
Wol