Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Wols Lists]

On 03/04/13 03:21, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> 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:

Dare I suggest you look at section zero? The second paragraph of which
says, and I quote:

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running
the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is
covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program
(independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that
is true depends on what the Program does."

In other words, the GPL restricts itself to the activities covered by
copyright law, and EXPLICITLY does not cover USING the program, which it
assumes is a right for which permission is not required.

And I took a look at version 3. Take a look at section 2, which starts,
and I quote:

"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. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law."

Note that it "affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified
program". It's not GRANTING permission, it's AFFIRMING permission. In
other words, it assumes you have that right regardless of what the
licence says, and it's making that explicit. Worded differently, it's
saying you DO NOT need the copyright holder's permission to USE the program.

So there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do that will cost you the right
to run an unmodified copy of the software on your computer.

What you seem unable to comprehend is that it is the law that gives the
GPL its teeth. Therefore, if the law says you don't need the GPL, then
the GPL is absolutely powerless! (and meaningless :-)

Cheers,
Wol