Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 04/04/2013 02:50 PM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
> Then, everybody is free to use "my-app.C" constraint to my terms, since they 
> are
> imposed on this very file.  However, nobody would be allowed to use /GSL/ to
> compile this program, because GPL considers "my-app.C" a covered work 
> /whenever
> used with a GPL'ed implementation/ of the GSL api.  So in essence, the source 
> is
> useless for purposes other than code study to anyone but me, since I am the 
> only
> one free to re-license my own creation under a different license (even without
> explicitly stating it).  People will compile the program with GSL, of course,
> but technically they are not allowed to do so

You're allowed to use GPL-licensed works in any way you see fit on your own
computer, including compiling against works with incompatible licenses (e.g.
compiling a Linux kernel with proprietary drivers included).  You find yourself
in violation of a license only when you start conveying covered works to others.

So, recipients of my-app.c could compile it against GSL on their own system, but
not share the resulting binary with others.

> Still, I agree that a more trustworthy source for the interpretation is
> required.  And I hope it turns out that the above situation is actually not 
> true...

I've broken my own resolution and replied on-list because I thought it was
important to correct your misunderstanding publicly, but if you'd like to
discuss this further, feel free to take it off-list.  Though I understand if you
don't consider my point of view to be trustworthy enough. :-)