Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session

[Urs Liska]

Am 31. Oktober 2016 01:43:26 GMT-07:00, schrieb David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> To make what I consider an apt analogy, using gcc doesn't require any
>> programs you create to be GPL'd.
>
>GCC has a special exception in the licensing exempting the startup
>stubs
>and other fixed material it might place into the code from requiring
>licensing.  The generated code as such is exempt from requiring a
>license anyway.
>
>Similar concerns for LilyPond would hold for library/LSR code bundled
>into the PDF file as source (we have an option for that or an issue for
>creating such an option).  And fonts in extractable forms of embedding.
>
>So it's not a no-brainer, but the concerns voiced by Urs are mostly
>incorrect.

Maybe not concretely enough, so I'll give a concrete example. Imagine the 
following project:

An edition project is to be made available as
- printed copies
- PDF files 
- a Git repository

The repository contains among others
- encoded music
- Scheme functions created for the project
- Scheme functions created using included code from LilyPond and GPLed 
openLilyLib
- Scheme functions created by modifying functions copied from LilyPond


Doesn't the GPL prevent me from making that repository available under, say, a 
non-free CC license or under a no-license like "you may read the code and use 
it to produce scores but you may not redistribute a modified version"?

I don't think one can that easily say "it's all documents and the license 
doesn't apply to that". 

Urs

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.