Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 04/03/2013 01:45 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> Is that in fact correct?  The quibbles here is what constitutes derivation.  
> If you write a program that calls a library during its function, is that 
> program derived from the library?  Or is the library just a resource that the 
> application uses?  I think in fact and by tradition the latter situation is 
> what applies.

I don't think that "derivation" in the traditional copyright sense is the
correct term to consider here.  A program that calls a GPL-licensed library
during its function is a defined as "covered work" in the terms of GPLv3, and
your right to use a GPL-licensed work is conditional on your compliance with its
terms on the distribution of "covered works".

> Make no mistake about it, the law has priority over the GPL in any court case.

Oh, I'm not disputing that.  It's just that this general and correct assertion
doesn't tell you anything about whether the GPL is actually in contradiction
with the law.

> Especially if the court determines, as would quite possibly be the case, that 
> the GPL has overreached (which in some ways it has).

Absent a court ruling, it seems difficult to me to assert that.