GNU clarification

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GNU clarification

Vaylor Trucks
I was not able to (quckly) find this info on the site or in the list
archives.  Suppose I want to use Lilypond to generate output which would
then be inserted into a book which I intend to sell:

1. is this a violation of the GNU?
2. if not, what attribution (if any) needs to be present in the final
materials?




_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNU clarification

Hans Aberg
Copyright only apply to the work parts of a work originated by  
humans. So it is not possible to claim copyrights for mere machine  
processing, and no acknowledgment is needed for that. It is though  
possible, in part, to restrict the use of a copyright, as long as it  
it does not restrict customary use of ownership of copyrighted  
material. For example, if you own a copyrighted book, you can freely  
sell it or do whatever you want to do with it, as long as it does not  
violate the rights of the copyright owner (like reprinting would),  
and it is not possible for the copyright owner to restrict that owner  
right. Computer software is in this respect no different than books;  
see:
     http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html
     http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html
     http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
If work is made up by differently copyrighted components, different  
legal principles apply. For example, if a composer makes a work,  
which a performer performs in an recording, then there was a case  
involving the Beastie Boys (see the Usenet newsgroup  
rec.music.theory), where the performer, but not the composer part,  
was viewed as copyrighted. The legal principle indicated by the court  
is that for a material to be considered copyrighted, there must be  
sufficiently creative human work involved to make it unique. The  
snipped from the composition was too short to make it attributable to  
the composers special creative imagination.

And as for licenses, they must be properly legally registered for  
each licensee (in advance of any purchase or use), as the user must  
give up the owner rights granted by copyrights. So most licenses  
sprinkled by the computer industry are probably not legally valid due  
to absent or improper legal registration, but copyright still apply.


On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:44, Vaylor Trucks wrote:

> I was not able to (quckly) find this info on the site or in the  
> list archives.  Suppose I want to use Lilypond to generate output  
> which would then be inserted into a book which I intend to sell:
>
> 1. is this a violation of the GNU?
> 2. if not, what attribution (if any) needs to be present in the  
> final materials?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNU clarification

Pedro Kröger
In reply to this post by Vaylor Trucks
"Vaylor Trucks" <[hidden email]> writes:

> I was not able to (quckly) find this info on the site or in the list
> archives.  Suppose I want to use Lilypond to generate output which
> would then be inserted into a book which I intend to sell:
>
> 1. is this a violation of the GNU?

I believe you mean the GPL? no, it's not a violation. You can do
whatever you want with the output lilypond generates. The license
applies to the source code of the program itself (i.e. the source code
of lilypond).

> 2. if not, what attribution (if any) needs to be present in the final
>    materials?

none, but you are welcomed to keep the "Music engraving by lilypond" tag in
your files. Or better yet, mention lilypond in the colophon section. Or
even better, if you make lots of money selling the book, consider making
a donation to the project. :-)

Pedro



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNU clarification

Jan Nieuwenhuizen
In reply to this post by Vaylor Trucks
Vaylor Trucks writes:

> I was not able to (quckly) find this info on the site or in the list
> archives.  Suppose I want to use Lilypond to generate output which
> would then be inserted into a book which I intend to sell:
>
> 1. is this a violation of the GNU?

What makes you think that?

> 2. if not, what attribution (if any) needs to be present in the final
>    materials?

Unless you distribute parts of LilyPond itself, there are no
obligations.  If you think LilyPond is useful, you are encouraged to
support the project by mentioning LilyPond was used to produce your book.

Jan.

--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[hidden email]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNU clarification

Han-Wen Nienhuys
In reply to this post by Vaylor Trucks
Vaylor Trucks wrote:
> I was not able to (quckly) find this info on the site or in the list
> archives.  Suppose I want to use Lilypond to generate output which would
> then be inserted into a book which I intend to sell:
>
> 1. is this a violation of the GNU?

GNU is a project, you're confusing the GNU GPL, a license, with the GNU
project.

The output of Lily is not GPL'd, so you're free to do with that as you
please.



--
  Han-Wen Nienhuys - [hidden email] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNU clarification

Matthias Kilian
In reply to this post by Pedro Kröger
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:25:41PM -0200, Pedro Kröger wrote:
> > 1. is this a violation of the GNU?
>
> I believe you mean the GPL? no, it's not a violation. You can do
> whatever you want with the output lilypond generates. The license
> applies to the source code of the program itself (i.e. the source code
> of lilypond).

And binary distributions, too. Which isn't important in this case, since
only the output is to be distributed.

But what about the fonts, which are included in "binary" form in each
printout generated by LilyPond -- maybe even if printed on paper.

Ciao,
        Kili

--
"We're still waiting for the Vatican to officially canonize
this kernel, but trust me, that's only a matter of time.
It's a little known fact, but the Pope likes penguins too."
                -- Linus Torvalds


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNU clarification

Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Matthias Kilian writes:

> But what about the fonts

We have made a special exception for fonts embedded in documents, see
the file COPYING distributed with LilyPond.

Jan.

--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[hidden email]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user