Re: New version of articulate available

[Peter Chubb]

>>>>> "Graham" == Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

Graham> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 04:23:12PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > The suggestion that a .ly file would somehow be a derivative work
>> > of lilypond is ridiculous.
>> 
>> Depends on how interlocked and crossdependent it is with internals
>> of Lilypond and whether or not stuff has been cross-copied.

Graham> If there's no allowances for "interoperability", and if the
Graham> amount of "interlocked-ness" (how do we measure this?) of
Graham> articulate.ly means that it's a derivative work, then any
Graham> serious use of scheme functions in lilypond would
Graham> automatically mean that the music must be GPLv3 or later.

I wrote articulate in 2008.  At that time, Lilypond was released under
GPL v2.0.  Therefore at that time there was no conflict.

There's no in principle reason why it shouldn't be relicensed under
GPL3.0, except it means another round with our lawyers to get a
release signed, which I really don't want to have to do.

I'll do it if I have to to get it merged, but i was hoping it wouldn't
be necessary.

Graham> Isn't that precisely the question?  You wrote: "It is not even
Graham> clear that Peter can release/distribute it under GPL version
Graham> 2.0 unless it will work unmodified with a version of Lilypond
Graham> released under GPL version 2.0"

It will so work.  It was written to use the public interfaces provided
by version 2.12, which is GPL version 2.0.  And that is why GPL v2.0
was chosen as the licence when I went through the rigmarole I had to
to get clearance to release it.

--
Dr Peter Chubb  http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au  peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au
http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au           ERTOS within National ICT Australia