Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Tim McNamara]

On Apr 2, 2013, at 8:47 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <address@hidden> wrote:

> 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.

You don't see how overreaching is built into what you wrote above about covered 
works?