Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 04/03/2013 01:14 AM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
> If your work does not include any of their work, then you don't need any
> permission to not copy their work! :-)

But I'm not talking about copying.  I'm talking about the right to use.

> And if you read the GPL, version 2 (I presume 3 has similar wording) says "the
> use of this work is outside the scope of this licence". The GPL explicitly
> rejects anything to do with the USE of the work.

You presume wrongly.  Section 2 of GPLv3 opens with:

 "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright
  on the Program, and are irrevocable _provided the stated conditions are met._"

[my emphasis].  Section 8 (Termination) opens with:

 "You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided
  under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void,
  and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including
  any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11)."

And Section 9 (Acceptance not required for having copies) reads (again, with my
emphasis):

 "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy
  of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a
  consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise
  does not require acceptance. _However, nothing other than this License grants
  you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions
  infringe copyright if you do not accept this License._ Therefore, by
  modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this
  License to do so."

> And what law will they use to use you? Oh - that's right, they'll use 
> copyright
> law!

Yes, because under the terms cited above, I will have lost my license to use the
work itself.

> At which point, they will have to show, to the Judge, that your work is 
> LEGALLY
> a derivative of theirs.

No, they have to show that it is a covered work as defined by the GPL, and that
by conveying it to others I have violated the terms of the license which grant
me the right to use it.

That in itself simply means that I am not legally allowed to use the program any
more -- and if I accept this and don't use it, they don't have a case.  But if I
_do_ continue to use it, then they _do_ have a case.

Note that I could also avoid the license violation by making a clean-room
re-implementation of the GPL-licensed work which can be used with my program.

> What I do know is that the GPL grants permissions that - absent the licence -
> you wouldn't have.
> 
> And if the law says you don't need those permissions, then you don't need that
> licence!

I know of no law that says you do not need the permission of the copyright
holder to use a computer program.  Even in the case of GPLv2, the your right to
use the program rests on their explicit statement granting you that right.

> Let's say I write a licence that Joseph Wakeling owes me £500 per month for 
> not
> using my code. I give you a copy. I now claim you owe me £500 for the month of
> April. How am I going to enforce it?

It seems fairly obvious you think I'm stupid, but do you really think I'm daft
enough to accept software that comes with a license like that? :-)

> (Oh, by the way, my understanding of the GPL has changed a fair bit over the
> years. Mostly as a result of discussing the niceties on Groklaw, so I think 
> most
> of my misunderstandings have been pretty much clue-by-four'd by now :-) But 
> this
> isn't a case of understanding the GPL, it's a matter of understanding the law.
> The law says "you don't need a licence" so that's the end of it!)

Forgive me, but I'm not very inclined to respect your "understanding of the GPL"
if it extends to "presuming" that v3 has similar wording to v2, without actually
bothering to read it. :-)  And v3 is the relevant version here.

Anyway, as David said elsewhere, I don't think anything I can say will change
your mind, so I think I'll bow out here (... he said to a sigh of relief from
probably everyone on the list ...).