Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 04/02/2013 07:33 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> If I do not copy the actual file into my .ly file but only have the \include 
> statement, I have not violated copyright.  It would be up to any subsequent 
> user to obtain the copyrighted Bob Jones file to use with \include or to come 
> up with a workaround.
> 
> Merely stating 
> 
>      \include "Bob Jones.ly" 
> 
> in my own .ly file does not violate copyright because it does not reproduce 
> or distribute the "Bob Jones.ly" file itself.  IMHO copyright is only a 
> problem if I copy the "Bob Jones.ly" file into my .ly file, in which case I 
> would probably also not be using \include.

But now suppose that bobjones.ly defines a number of new functions, \bobFoo,
\bobBar, etc., and that you use them on a number of occasions throughout your
own .ly file.  Is the issue so clear any more?

If that's not good enough, suppose that you don't just use Bob Jones' functions
in your .ly file, but you actually construct new functions of your own that use
Bob's functions.  Can you still say there's no issue?

When you add to that the fact that the particular case we're concerned with
involves copyleft licensing which gives a particular and precise definition to
what is considered a "derivative work", it really doesn't seem to me possible to
just write this off.