Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz

[Jeff Barnes]

David Kastrup wrote:



> Jeff Barnes <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>>  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?
> 
> Of course copyright extends to paper, but not to programmatic output.
> It would extend to embedded fonts, but IIRC, they are licensed
> differently.  Or at least they would, if there were interest.


If the use of the fonts were covered by LilyPond's license, that would pretty 
much kill using LilyPond for anything at a publishing house, wouldn't it? Or am 
I misunderstanding you? Does distributing a pdf of Lily's output potentially 
mean you have to make Lily's source, the .ly file, or any other artifact the 
user created using Lily available under GPL? What do I have to provide to 
satisfy the LilyPonds licensing requirements if I wanted to distribute sheet 
music I wrote using LilyPond to engrave?

>>  But most forward thinking publishing companies would give the source
>>  code back. After all, their core business isn't <edit>LilyPond</edit>, it's
>>  publishing.
>> 
>>  Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :)
> 
> You don't want to help the competition. 

Perhaps with the passing of the old guard old ideas will die. It's not a matter 
of helping the competition, because the real competition is over content. Open 
standards and tools help focus attention on the business of publishing content 
and less on the tools. A company wouldn't have to release its \tweaks, 
\overrides, etc. and therefore still keep the proprietary look of its published 
music.

Jeff