Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Anthonys Lists <address@hidden> writes:

> If they DID relicence it, then it is copyrightable

Nonsense.  An explicit license can be given for things not actually
requiring a license for particular uses under current legal standards.
It is a pledge "if you follow these rules, I won't drag you to court
over use of this material", and if that explicit pledge is broken, the
complaint is very likely to just get tossed without incurring
significant costs.

That is totally different from opining some material to not be
copyrightable.  You might need to convince a court explicitly then, and
particularly in the U.S., that can be a rather expensive feat even if
you prevail.

-- 
David Kastrup