Re: [oll-user] Call for initial feedback

[Urs L. <ul...@op...>]

Am 28.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
> ..
>
> Looking into that code, I realized there is another issue.  Your stated licence
> is GPL.  How is that meant to interact with the case where e.g. I write an
> original piece of music and use OLLib's toolbox in my Lilypond source file?  I
> am reasonably sure that if I release only the resulting PDF, there would not be
> an issue, but if I want to distribute the .ly source file(s) then almost
> certainly GPL requirements would kick in and would therefore force me to give a
> GPL licence to my piece of music.
>
> This seems to me to be unacceptable overreach on the part of the licensing.  It
> may be worth raising this on the LP lists as it probably also applies to LP
> \include's.
>
Just one thought (don't have more time now):
Could it be that the lilypond source files that include OLLib or any 
other files from the LIlyPond distribution could be regarded as 
'documents' so that the GPL doesn't apply in the way you suggested?

I think there is something to that, otherwise we'd have a similar 
situation with LaTeX packages, isn't it?

The GPL doesn't say that the _usage result_ of GPLed software must be GPLed.
And although .ly files are source code, I'd consider them rather 
documents than software.

???