Re: GNU clarification

[Hans Aberg]

Copyright only apply to the work parts of a work originated by  
humans. So it is not possible to claim copyrights for mere machine  
processing, and no acknowledgment is needed for that. It is though  
possible, in part, to restrict the use of a copyright, as long as it  
it does not restrict customary use of ownership of copyrighted  
material. For example, if you own a copyrighted book, you can freely  
sell it or do whatever you want to do with it, as long as it does not  
violate the rights of the copyright owner (like reprinting would),  
and it is not possible for the copyright owner to restrict that owner  
right. Computer software is in this respect no different than books;  
see:
    http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html
    http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html
    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
If work is made up by differently copyrighted components, different  
legal principles apply. For example, if a composer makes a work,  
which a performer performs in an recording, then there was a case  
involving the Beastie Boys (see the Usenet newsgroup  
rec.music.theory), where the performer, but not the composer part,  
was viewed as copyrighted. The legal principle indicated by the court  
is that for a material to be considered copyrighted, there must be  
sufficiently creative human work involved to make it unique. The  
snipped from the composition was too short to make it attributable to  
the composers special creative imagination.

And as for licenses, they must be properly legally registered for  
each licensee (in advance of any purchase or use), as the user must  
give up the owner rights granted by copyrights. So most licenses  
sprinkled by the computer industry are probably not legally valid due  
to absent or improper legal registration, but copyright still apply.


On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:44, Vaylor Trucks wrote:

> I was not able to (quckly) find this info on the site or in the  
> list archives.  Suppose I want to use Lilypond to generate output  
> which would then be inserted into a book which I intend to sell:
>
> 1. is this a violation of the GNU?
> 2. if not, what attribution (if any) needs to be present in the  
> final materials?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user