Re: New version of articulate available

[David Kastrup]

Peter Chubb <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> "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.

Yes and no.  You certainly were not in breach of Lilypond's license.
However, Lilypond as a whole was licensed under the GPLv2.0 "or at your
choice, any later version".  That means that even at that time, code in
articulate.ly, licensed under GPLv2.0 only, would have to be kept
separate from Lilypond proper.

You could have released your own variant of Lilypond integrating
articulate.ly under GPLv2.0 only.

> 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 very much imagine so.

Here is my personal estimate of the situation, and it will be quite easy
to ask the FSF copyright clerk for reconfirmation or a more qualified
opinion.

First please bear in mind that there is no point in shooting the
messenger.  I am _reporting_ the situation as I think it is.  I am not
creating the situation.

First thing to note is that _currently_, any licensing problems are
pursued in civil courts by request of the copyright holder.  So unless a
copyright holder takes action, there are no liabilities.  Note that the
U.S. currently tries to change the laws, turning copyright violations
into a felony, meaning that district attorneys might pursue them
_against_ the wishes of the copyright holders (like they can pursue rape
or blackmail against the wishes of the victims).
<URL:http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html>

Don't berate me, berate your congressman.  And do it in time.

Currently, we are still talking about civil court and action taken by
request of any copyright holder.  Lilypond is currently licensed under
GPLv3, or, at your choice, any later version released by the FSF.

That is not likely to amuse company lawyers because that introduces an
unknown into the equation.  The FSF is limited in what future versions
of the GPL might be: when they receive copyright assignments (for
mission-critical software like GCC or Emacs), they give out a written
contract specifying that future versions of the license will guarantee
access by the public and granting the copyright holder no specific
rights over the public (of course, as long as the copyright holder is
the _sole_ copyright holder, he implicitly has the option to relicense
under any license he wants to).

So the FSF is quite limited in scope about what "or any later version"
can mean.

At the same time, the legal/computational landscape changes: nowadays
there are effective ways to render the promises of the GPLv2 to the end
user moot by reverting to software patents and/or digital rights
management.

The FSF tries keeping the GPL effective and users in charge of obtaining
the source needed to understand and modify their software copies.

Changes to the GPL are done in order to keep a pool of essential and
copylefted software available and dependable to the public.

One project with a _large_ pool of GPLv2 only software is XEmacs.  They
are trying to upgrade to GPLv3+, and are almost there (it is important
so that they can keep updating packages that are part of Emacs, which
has changed to GPLv3+ years ago).  It is a total mess, annoying lots of
people, but they are close to getting there.  It also means weeding out
code for which one can't round up the necessary people, either because
they have dropped off the landscape or because nobody knows who they
were.  Or because they refuse to be bothered.

Of course, everybody curses the FSF for coming up with new versions of
the GPL, and nobody bothers cursing the politicians for coming up with
utterly ridiculous copyright and patent laws tailored to the whims of
the big industry lobbies, necessitating new GPL versions in order to
keep free software availability.

Shoot the messenger all over.

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

The GPLv3 states under 5 "Conveying modified source versions"

    c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
    License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.  This
    License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
    additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
    regardless of how they are packaged.  This License gives no
    permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
    invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

If articulate.ly is licensed under GPLv2 and included and distributed as
a part of Lilypond, of course nobody can blame you for that.  But your
company lawyers might decide to sue the Lilypond project and ask for a
removal of articulate.ly in a project distributed _not_ under GPLv2 as a
whole (GPLv2 includes a condition very much alike to the above condition
from GPLv3).

Yes, this is stupid.  But it is not I who has come up with that kind of
stupidity.

> 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.

If it is written using _public_ interfaces, it can be reasonably
considered an independent work and distributed separately.  But making
it an _integral_ part of Lilypond will not be feasible.  Because then
somebody distributing Lilypond under GPLv2 and using DRM to limit its
distribution can then point to "dirty hands" of the Lilypond project who
distribute Lilypond under violation of the GPLv2 on articulate.ly.

> 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.

Does your company has a vested interest into Lilypond itself?  Do you do
your Lilypond development during company hours?  If not, it might be
easiest to get a disclaimer of interest of your company, that basically
says "what Peter does in his free time on the Lilypond project is not
objectionable to us".  If you think that is a feasible way, I can try
getting you appropriate papers (the FSF usually does that in the course
of copyright assignments, but it should work without assignment as
well), and if you get them past your legal department, you are set for
all future license changes/upgrades of Lilypond.

And if you think this kind of nonsense is stifling industry and
innovation rather than furthering it, don't tell me.  That's preaching
to the choir.  Tell your congressman.

-- 
David Kastrup