Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 03/30/2013 01:02 AM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
> On the other hand, user C /should/ be allowed to distribute source code under
> whatever license he wants to /as long as he doesn't ship the GPL libraries 
> with
> it./  It's useless without them, but anybody who wants to run or compile the
> code is free to download the necessary GPL'ed stuff.

If I write a computer program which uses functions from a GPL'd library, it
doesn't matter whether I distribute an executable or just source code, and it
doesn't matter whether I distribute the source code alongside the GPL'd
libraries or as an individual file.  It's a derivative work under the GPL and
must be licensed accordingly when distributed.

See: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

Perhaps you are thinking of e.g. the case with UNIX shell scripts, where e.g. I
can write a script that calls GNU sed without having to license my script under
the GPL.  But this is because there's no dynamic linking that takes place when I
do so -- I'm starting an independent process and receiving its output.

See e.g.: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins