Re: New version of articulate available

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:24:42AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Not likely to work well.  It is not even clear that Peter can
> release/distribute it under GPL version 2.0 unless it will work
> unmodified with a version of Lilypond released under GPL version 2.0.
> If it doesn't, the question is whether it counts as being a derivative
> of Lilypond.

The suggestion that a .ly file would somehow be a derivative work
of lilypond is ridiculous.

Writing a C++ to be compiled with gcc does not constitute a
derivate work of gcc.  Writing an html file to be displayed in
Firefox does not consistute a derivative work of firefox.
Creating graphics in GIMP does not constitute a derivative work of
gimp.  etc.

articulate.ly is a 668-line .ly file containing a bunch of scheme.
It is absolutely not a derivative work of lilypond.

> I strongly suggest not distributing it with the rest of
> Lilypond since any "crosspollination", namely people using the code, its
> structure, documentation and whatever else will constitute a licensing
> violation of Peter's and his empoyer's licensing choice.

The documentation was written by Francisco.  I agree that this
could cause a problem if anybody (other than Peter or a NICTA
employee) ever tried to "port" these functions into a Performer.

> Since that is an accident waiting to happen even if inclusion of
> articulate.ly could conceivably count as "mere aggregation", we need to
> steer clear.

articulate.ly is an optional include.  It's less "aggrevated" than
the "public domain" snippets which we include in the manual.

I can't imagine how anything that we (potentially) distribute
could be more "mere aggrevation" than articulate.ly.

> Any other GPLvx.0 only (where x includes 3) bombs waiting to happen in
> the Lilypond code base?

A few quick greps suggests that we have some "2.0 or later" stuff,
which isn't a problem.  texinfo.tex, the big contender in my mind
for 2.0, is 3.0 or later.

Cheers,
- Graham