Re: Question for a FLOSS licensing session

[Wols Lists]

On 02/11/16 15:14, David Kastrup wrote:
> Wols Lists <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On 31/10/16 10:08, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>> Only the very last item is relevant if by "included code" you mean
>>> "\include ...".
>>>
>>>>> 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"?
>>
>>> The GPL applies only with the very last item.  All the rest is
>>> irrelevant.  Note that the principal distribution is not a modified
>>> version of LilyPond but a document and stuff particular to creating that
>>> document with the help of LilyPond, but "with the help of LilyPond" does
>>> not imply LilyPond as a component of the project, just as a tool
>>> required for it.
>>
>> To elaborate, the first three items are all your work and you can
>> licence them as you wish. If they assume the computer has a copy of
>> lilypond on it, that is the end-user's problem.
>>
>> As David says, the only problem is where you have taken and modified
>> lilypond (GPL) code.
>>
>> And imho, provided everything is in source code form, you can't breach
>> the GPL anyway.
> 
> Wrong.  Your duty is to license the whole work you distribute under the
> terms of the GPL, with due notices attached and the licensing obvious to
> the downstream recipient.  If you fail to do so, you are in violation of
> the license you received LilyPond under and can be sued to cease and
> desist distribution by one of the original copyright holders.
> 
> This is not rocket science.

Where does it tell me I have to licence *MY* code as GPL (if I
distribute it as source)?

Umm ... I've just read v3 Section 5, and I don't think that's legally
enforceable! It's claiming rights over non-derivative works!

"or the modifications to produce it from the Program" - if it doesn't
actually contain any code lifted from the program then *that* is *not* a
derivative work!
> 
> I am constantly reminded of the time where my ex proofread a philosophy
> paper about Plato's cave thingy and told the writer that she thought
> that interpretation untenable and asked her whether she had actually
> read the text she had been writing about (Schleiermacher has done an
> excellent job at translating Plato's dialogues, to the degree that quite
> a few other translations are based on Schleiermacher's German rather
> than Plato's Greek).  Turns out she hadn't, just texts written _about_
> that text.  Not even reading the original is not contributing to
> knowledge, "Wissenschaft" or science.
> 
> The GPL is short.  There just is no necessity to spread one's ideas what
> might or should have been in it instead of actually taking a look.
> 
> It's mentioned right in the preamble:
> 
>       For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
>     gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
>     freedoms that you received.  You must make sure that they, too, receive
>     or can get the source code.  And you must show them these terms so they
>     know their rights.
> 
Firstly, the preamble is not legally binding. And secondly, how does
distributing AS SOURCE take away any of those rights?

I must admit, you've made me think, but I think the GPL v3 is playing
"fast and loose" with the definition of a derivative work. If I take
source repository, and ADD CODE, and then distribute that AS SOURCE, I'm
pretty certain my additions will, legally, fall under "mere
aggregation". Which is why I said that doing it is legal, but would
cause problems for downstream ...

So I have to stand by what I said - if the first three are "all your own
work" there is no obligation to licence as GPL. The last one is the
problematic one because it contains other peoples' code and the GPL will
bite. But even there, your patch doesn't need to be GPL - it's just that
by combining it with the other source, the result is GPL.

Cheers,
Wol