Re: Once for all and one last time (was Future of openLilyLib)

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <simon.albrecht@mail.de> writes:

>> On 10.10.20 14:11, Simon Albrecht wrote:
>>> Dear Karsten and list,
>>>
>>> On 22.09.20 22:40, Karsten Reincke wrote:
>>>> 5) I've learned, that all(?) of you consider this an untenable if
>>>> not silly position and that the PDFs and midi-files compiled by
>>>> Lilypond are never affected by the strong copyleft effect of the
>>>> GPL. That's good to hear. But I don't understand, why - under this
>>>> circumstances - it should be garbage to add a respective clarifying
>>>> statement (the 'include clause' or however you want to name it), if
>>>> it is at least partially conceivable that such a position will be
>>>> taken and if all of you do not want to use / establish its
>>>> consequences. But that's my problem. 
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to join in asking this question, namely what’s the
>>> reason not to add such an ‘include clause’? (Am I correct in
>>> gathering that LGPL basically means GPL + such an include clause?)
>
> There’s no such thing as retracting an e-mail, but I would like to do it.
>
> Sorry for failing to realise how old the thread was before replying.

Two weeks?  I've replied on occasion to threads that were 10 years old,
basically because threads tends to be archived and turn up on keyword
searches.  So sometimes I feel it makes sense to add crucial information
to them, even if the likelihood that the original participants care is
pretty much zero.

Admittedly, it happens more to discussions concerning vintage digital
cameras, but there have been two or three occasions where I even did it
with LilyPond.  Typically somewhat facetiously when some long-requested
feature or bug had finally been addressed, probably in the wake of
structural changes making it possible in the first place.

-- 
David Kastrup