Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 04/02/2013 11:57 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
> On 02/04/2013 22:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> Indeed, and a consequence of distributing a "covered work" under
>> GPL-incompatible terms is that you lose the permissions granted under that
>> license.
> 
> EXCEPT EXCEPT EXCEPT THE LAW SAYS YOU *DON'T* *NEED* ANY PERMISSION !!!

What, I don't need permission to use a computer program written by someone else
that is still in copyright?

I get to use the GNU Scientific Library _only_ because its authors have granted
me permission to do so.  That permission is conditional on my adhering to a
number of conditions.  One of those conditions is that if I distribute what the
GPL refers to as a "covered work" -- in this case, a work based on the GNU
Scientific Library, such as my little program -- I must do so under a
GPL-compatible license.

If I break that condition, I lose the permission granted to use the GNU
Scientific Library.  That doesn't mean its authors can sue me for distributing
my little piece of code under a proprietary license.  It means they can sue me
if I continue to use the GNU Scientific Library.

> Sorry for shouting, but just go ask a lawyer. ANY lawyer with a half-way 
> decent
> grasp of copyright.

I suggest it's not me who doesn't understand copyright, but you who doesn't
understand the niceties of the GPL.  I'll happily accept proof that I'm wrong,
but shouting at me (or making general assertions about the relative priority of
the GPL versus the law) doesn't count as proof :-)