Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session

[Urs Liska]

Am 30.10.2016 um 20:26 schrieb Edward Ardzinski:
> Does this matter to the average user?  Probably not.  But some here use LP 
> for more than I do.
>
> But I'm not sure why the programming should be separated from the output? 

Because that might lead to the situation that the license applying to
LilyPond might prevent users from actually using it when they are not
ready to open source their work.
And that's definitely not the intention of the GPL.

Urs

>  From my perspective the programming IS the music, be it a PDF score or the 
> MIDI files I use to make my MP3 demos.
>
> Certainly I see a differentiation license wise between taking the midi and 
> rendering the MP3.  I don't have to take that step.  But if I'm using LP to 
> make a final product, I certainly need to write the programming code.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 30, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm right now at the GSoC mentors summit and already had a bunch of
>> interesting sessions.
>>
>> One specific one that is to come this afternoon is a Q&A session about
>> FLOSS licensing, done by a FSF lawyer. I want to take the opportunity to
>> raise a question that in some way or another pops up around here
>> occasionally, circling around the problem that with LilyPond it is often
>> difficult to draw a proper line between document content, in-document
>> coding and including GPLed code from LilyPond or openLilyLib.
>>
>> I have tried to write up the case at
>> https://git.openlilylib.org/snippets/2, and if someone wants to comment
>> on it within the next three hours I may consider it for my questions.
>>
>> Urs
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user