Re: [oll-user] Licensing questions

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

Am 05.04.2013 20:00, schrieb Urs Liska:
> 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.
>
One thing I forgot in the above post:

If we should settle upon a more permissive license in some parts we'd 
have to take care that we still comply with GNU's ideas.
Not because I'm a purist or because I'm afraid of David K's comments, 
but because there was a discussion on lilypond-user about GNU programs 
(i.e. LilyPond) not being allowed to endorse or link to non-free 
software and/or documentation. (This was in the context of discussing my 
tutorial containing copyrighted music).

Urs