Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Anthonys Lists]

On 02/04/2013 23:31, David Kastrup wrote:
> 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.

Except that they didn't own any copyright in any of the header (or I 
assume so). The point I'm making is that "if a licence was needed, then 
Google had no right to grant it".

So what Google did was, effectively, say "if you follow these rules, I 
won't sue you for trespassing on my neighbour's property". Even worse, 
if it were copyrightable, Google would be inciting people to break 
copyright.

> 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.
Agreed.

Cheers,
Wol