lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz


From: Jeff Barnes
Subject: Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:14:42 -0700 (PDT)

Tim McNamara wrote;


> On May 24, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Barnes wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors? I 
>> see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation
>> donates developers to projects the company have an interest in.
>
> Hmm.  OpenOffice for example?*

Would you stipulate that there are successful GPL projects involving
corporate sponsors?

>> As in, 1) convince a large publishing house they'd be better off relying on 
>> an open source music engraver, 2) get hired by them and 3) bingo, your 
>> dream job.
>
>> There are risks. The project could fork, the corporation may have different
>> goals than yours, etc.
>
> Those are not risks.  They are guarantees.  And most assuredly few
> corporate sponsors would permit the project to be published under the 
> GPL.  The notion of "owing" intellectual property has become so very
> deeply ingrained in corporate culture around the world that the GPL is
> a dealbreaker.  

My company, a large cable provider in the US, uses a lot of GPL code 
in its distributed products. It also donates developer time to many of
those projects.

> The notion of users having freedom is anathema to most.

That may be true of some, perhaps "most" as you put it. But I think the
deal breaker is more along the lines of losing some perceived competitive
advantage by having to give back optimizations or improvements to the 
codebase.

I don't think that's necessarily applicable to Lily. The end product being
distributed is paper (or perhaps a pdf file). I don't think the GPL extends
to that, does it? One doesn't need to make Lily source code notices on
every piece of music they distribute engraved with LilyPond, do they?

Also, do I understand correctly that a company could make changes to
the source code and use it without giving it back? They probably 
should to be good citizens, but are they required to do so if they don't
distribute LilyPond according to GPL? 

But most forward thinking publishing companies would give the source
code back. After all, their core business isn't LilyPad, it's publishing.

Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :)

Regards,
Jeff




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]