[oll-user] Licensing questions

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

Maybe we'll manage to keep this quieter within this still small number 
of readers than on the lilypond-user list
(see 
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-03/msg01144.html 
and _many_ follow-ups).

We agree that the licencing as is present in the current source files 
needs reconsideration before the first serious file release.

While our situation is similar to that of LilyPond proper we still are 
independent and can (and have to) find our own solution.

Generally we seem to agree on our intentions it seems difficult to 
understand how the license models apply to our files. For final 
decisions we will have to wait for the outcome of the general 
discussion, but I'd like to summarize what I assume to be our 
intentions, to be able to discuss them and have them ready when necessary.

There are a few points where we have to distinguish, and we can't apply 
one solution for all aspects:
- We have to put copyright notices into each source file,
   but also as printed copyright notices in the pdf manuals.
   Do they have to be different, and if yes, in which way?
- We have LilyPond and LaTeX files. Can they be treated identically?
- We have different types of (LilyPond) files with different types of 
content:
   - library files with functions that are typically _used_
   - example and template files that are sometimes used but probably 
more often copied and modified

Now to our assumed intentions as I understand them:

- In general we want to provide our material as 'free' as possible.
- But this freedom should also include the right to distribute works 
with restricted licenses.

To be more concrete:

a) OLLib:
- Someone includes ollib and uses its functions, engravers or other 
material in his .ly documents:
   -> He can do what he wants with them,
      i.e. distribute the output files with or without sources and under 
any license
      He does _not_ have to distribute OLLib together with the sources
      (except he wants the recipient to be able to compile the files ...)
- Someone (uses OLLib and) copies and modifies items from it:
   -> He may distribute the resulting PDF files without sources under 
any license
   -> If he wants to share the sources,
      he has to do so under the same (?) license that we found (i.e. 
with the same level of enforced freedom ;-) )
      But: Does this then apply to the complete file or only to the used 
material?
   -> He has to correctly attribute the used material
This applies to OLLib core functions as well as the examples and template.

I think the best outcome would be if we just _can_ use the GPL for this.

b) LaTeX packages
- We should check whether the LPPL (Latex Public Project License) is a 
useable choice for us too.
- Specific question: Does it matter that we have LilyPond sources and 
Python scripts as part of the packages?

c) Tutorials and Documentation
- We want that people can use, modify and redistribute any materials.
- For this the appropriate license seems to by the CC-BY-SA license.
- Question: Can one just release the complete pdf under that license? Or 
does one have to distinguish between, say, texts, source code examples, 
music (which may be under copyright or a non-compatible license)?

I think we should have a "if not stated otherwise" disclaimer in any case.


A final question:
How should the main copyright clause be set?
Currently I have "Copyright 2013 by Urs Liska and others", but I'm not 
sure if that's the right way.
In a clause we should also say something like: Copyright the attributed 
authors of each content item - but of course we'd need some fallback clause.

Best
Urs