Re: MusicXML 2.0?
I now realize that I had never received the follow-ups to my mail.
Please keep me in Cc.
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Sun 28 Jun 2009 20:20:25 +0200, a écrit :
> > I would like to package a software which includes some dtd modules
> > licensed under the MusicXML 2.0 license [1]. It looks like a free
> > license, but something catched my attention:
> >
> > `No one other than Recordare LLC has the right to modify this
> > Agreement.'
> >
> > which I understand as not allowing re-licensing.
>
> Err, no.
?!
> The GPL does exactly the same thing, except not explicitly. As I
> understand it, Recordare are saying "these are the terms we are
> making this stuff available to you on, and only we can change those
> terms". If I make stuff available to you under the GPL, then no-one
> other than me has the right to change those terms (ie, in Recordare's
> words, "modify this agreement").
Yes, that's what I call not allowing re-licensing. Unlike BSD for
instance.
> Oh - and the GPL does NOT allow re-licensing, either!
Sure.
> What it allows you to do (and what this licence probably does - I
> haven't analysed it) is to add code under a compatible licence. You
> haven't changed the licence on the existing code, so the derived
> work is only distributable on those terms which intersect the two
> licences. What the GPL demands here is that the GPL always be a subset
> of the intersect, so that anybody can safely assume the GPL applies to
> the whole work.
And the problem that can come is that MusicXML does not allow to be
distributed under other terms, and thus we're not able to include GPL so
as to have the intersection contain GPL.
> > The thing is: these dtd modules are referenced to by a GPL dtd (which
> > also references an MPL 1.1 dtd), like this:
> >
> > <!ENTITY % laDtdMusique SYSTEM "partwise.dtd" >
> > <!ENTITY % laDtdXHTML SYSTEM "xhtml11.dtd" >
> >
> > The dtd is eventually used by a GPL/LGPL java application. My concern
> > is whether the GPL has to propagate down to the MusicXML 2.0 dtd being
> > used, as that would require re-licensing. What do people think about
> > it?
>
> These references are "executed" by the user, so actually I would say that the GPL is irrelevant here -
Ok, that's what I wanted to know.
> Oh - and as I said - the GPL does *not* *permit* re-licensing, so this
> entire argument has to be flawed, anyway.
Sure, I'm *not* talking about re-licensing the GPL part, but about
re-licensing the MusicXML part so that it contains the GPL in order to
become compatible.
> I think you need a little deeper understanding of the GPL. Read,
> learn and inwardly digest the part where it says "when you pass on
> a copy that you have received, the recipient receives a licence
> from the original copyright holder" (yes I know that's not an exact
> quote). That - *intentionally* - cuts the distributor out of the loop
> as far as copyright law is concerned. So if you modify a GPL program
> and then pass it on, any licences, restrictions, whatever that you
> apply, are ONLY relevant in so far as they apply to stuff for which
> *you* hold the copyright.
I don't understand what makes you think I haven't understood that.
Samuel
Reply to: