Re: License for a LilyPond library

[Mattes]

Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015 11:30 CET, Urs Liska <address@hidden> schrieb:

> Hi all,

Hi Urs,

> once again returning to this ever-hot topic ...
>
> I'm going to release a library with LilyPond code, and I'm not
> completely sure which license this should be done with:
>
> My intentions are:
>
>   * Anybody should be able to *use* the library, that is \include it and
>     use its functions, even in commercial and closed-source environments
>   * Anybody should be allowed to modify the library code itself, but
>     this should be forced to be open source.
>
> My impression is that the LGPL is created exactly for this purpose. Am I
> right with that? Or not? If not, what would be a good alternative?

Yes, the second requirement pretty much excludes BSDish licences.
But, to be realistic: even with LGPL, the licence only covers _redistribution_ 
of
the code, not use. So, someone changing your library can't  be forced to commit 
back
unless he/she redistributes the modified code.

 HTH Ralf Mattes

> TIA
> Urs
>