lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Scorio and GPL


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Scorio and GPL
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:58:45 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Martin Tarenskeen <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Back to the point: The non-free apps are used to access the servers
>> of scorio. AFAIK there is no GPL licensed code needed to run the app,
>> its just accessing a web-service.

If LilyPond were employed to a significant degree in providing
typesetting services, one might wonder about whether one wanted to
change the license to the Affero GPL.  The Affero GPL requires the
provider of web services to provide the sources of the variant of
LilyPond they are using.  However, it is likely that they either touch
the LilyPond code very little in order to be able to upgrade reasonably
easy to newer versions of LilyPond, in which case the glue code they use
for talking to their proprietary applications is not something that the
FSF is really interested in sanctioning by pulling it into our own
LilyPond distribution, and the glue code could be done in a way not to
trigger "software as a whole".

Or they have taken LilyPond at a given version for an invasive
integration with their software and are not seriously upgrading it
anymore, in which case a license change would not affect them.

So with regard to user freedom, I don't think that we can reasonably
achieve anything via licensing.

> Then at least I would say it would be more gentleman-like if they at
> least would mention LilyPond prominently on their website.

The last time I looked, they did mention it when you looked on their
"About" pages.

I checked again, and LilyPond is not mentioned in the About pages
<URL:http://www.scorio.com/web/scorio/about-scorio>, but briefly in
<URL:http://www.scorio.com/web/scorio/platform> linked from there.
Considering the weight all other details in the "about page" itself and
linked from it are getting, this is underwhelming.  And they take care
to call LilyPond a "sheet music generator" which does not suggest that
it is user-accessible.

So while they put out one or two sentences of praise for their choice
(at least they do link to our web page), the way it is phrased will not
make any end users consider assessing LilyPond.

-- 
David Kastrup



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]