On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:46:56AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
Guile I think is LGPLv3 although parts may be GPL -- but that's only for
the current development release (i.e. 1.9.x). 1.8.x is still under
LGPLv2+.
Ouch.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 09:10:20 schrieb Graham Percival:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:46:56AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
Guile I think is LGPLv3 although parts may be
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 09:26:25AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 09:10:20 schrieb Graham Percival:
Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't
use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So,
lilypond
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 07:45:46PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message 1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost, John Mandereau
john.mander...@gmail.com writes
On the opposite, note that snippets from LSR are public domain, not FDL.
Aarrgghh.
The snippets are [insert incorrect
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:28:11PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
The snippets are taken from the LSR and a condition of submission to the
LSR is that you consign your work to the public domain (and that you
have the right to do so). I know, because I submitted a couple of
snippets to the
Op donderdag 17-09-2009 om 18:19 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Patrick
McCarty:
Doing a make -f lilypond.make bootstrap, GUB halts at
darwin-x86::cross/gcc.
Could you look into that?
The end of the build.log is attached.
Could you look into that? I cannot reproduce this.
Greetings
Jan.
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't use
guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So, lilypond
then has to switch to GPLv3... But then we have a problem with freetype,
which
is FTL (BSD with advertising
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 10:11:54 schrieb Graham Percival:
No, because LGPL has additional restrictions. The problem is not that we
would be violating guile's license, but lilypond's license does not allow
linking to a LGPLv3 library. So
Hi Carl,
That will work, but it's still a work-around. We'd be avoiding setting
it as a context property to keep the architectural thinking clean, while
at the same time duplicating the functionality of a property by hand.
What we're in effect doing here is duplicating the behaviour of a
Have had a look through the licenses of dependencies as listed in the
Contributor's Guide.
It looks like the problems are FreeType (GPLv2 only or GPL-incompatible
permissive license, so blocks upgrade); Guile (future versions will be
LGPLv3+, so GPLv2-only-incompatible); and potentially Pango (if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 13:46:32 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
It looks like the problems are FreeType (GPLv2 only or GPL-incompatible
permissive license, so blocks upgrade);
The FTL is GPLv2-incompatible, but according to the FSF, it's GPLv3-
On 9/20/09 5:40 AM, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote:
Hi Carl,
That will work, but it's still a work-around. We'd be avoiding setting it as
a context property to keep the architectural thinking clean, while at the same
time duplicating the functionality of a property by hand.
OK, I
Similarly, the validity of This work is released by me, the author,
into the public domain in the US is under debate, because US law
allows authors to retain the right to redact licenses to their
copyright works. There is an argument that the moment you put
something in the PD, you lose the
Following the earlier discussion with Graham and others, this patch
slightly rewrites the COPYING file to clarify the Lilypond licensing
situation.
It might also be sensible to add a line mentioning that docs are
released under GFDL, and a separate COPYING.DOCUMENTATION file that
contains that
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 13:46:32 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
It looks like the problems are FreeType (GPLv2 only or GPL-incompatible
permissive license, so blocks upgrade);
The FTL is GPLv2-incompatible, but according to the FSF, it's GPLv3-
compatible... See
Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 9/20/09 5:40 AM, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote:
Hi Carl,
That will work, but it's still a work-around.� We'd be avoiding setting it as
a context property to keep the architectural thinking clean, while at the same
time duplicating the functionality of a property
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
This seems like a good idea to me. However, I'm not really strong on parser
variables. But if this does work, I think it would be an improved way of
handling point-and-click, because, as you say, it would tie into the
Hi,
I have been hacking around a little bit with the midi2ly script.
Some time ago I reported a problem with tunes that were not in
3/4 time.
But as reaction I got a sorry, midi2ly is not supported anymore
So I decided to try a little Python hacking myself.
I found the problem was in format-1
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Martin Tarenskeen
m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl wrote:
I have been hacking around a little bit with the midi2ly script.
Hi Martin,
thanks for working on that. I have opened a tracker page and marked it
as started to keep track of your work:
Thanks, modified accordingly.
Cheers,
- Graham
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:26:53PM -0400, Travis Briggs wrote:
The only thing I can tell is that you need to remove the part about
needing python, since (as the doc says) Python is now bundled.
Other than that, the rest looks accurate and
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 08:18:14PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
There's a *ton* of other janitorial work to be done, especially by
people who have proven that they're willing to do work (about 50%
of people who say hey, I want to help out never do anything!).
And
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 09:19:35PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 18:34 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
I'd rather not keep track of individual licenses in the source
tree. Since he's stated that his work is in public domain,
there'd be no problems with people
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:23:06PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
This is fixed on the new website.
But not on the current one, which is still live ... :-)
Patches accepted.
I'll see what I can do. (Depending on the timeline for launch of the
new site. Not
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:34:46PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 10:11:54 schrieb Graham Percival:
So basically, you are telling all package
maintainers of all distributions to violate the copyright of all lilypond
contributors.
No, I am not telling
Hi Neil,
thanks for reviewing and applying.
I think what now should be done is to check all assoc-get calls whether
they should use strict_checking or not.
In some cases this can be quite difficult IMHO and it's a far more
time-consuming task than what I've done. Maybe Mark can do this? I
Graham Percival wrote:
For this reason, I categorically refuse to have file-specific
ownership. Documentation is documentation; any doc committers
will be listed in the same place.
About docs, I completely agree. I didn't have to spend long in the git
logs to realise that it just wasn't
Graham Percival wrote:
I would have thought that
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-09/msg00438.html
was right up your alley.
Yep. I was having a bit of a look through what's there to see what
would be involved. I'll see what I can do ...
Neil Puttock wrote:
2009/9/14 Michael Käppler xmichae...@web.de:
Hmm, I can't reproduce this here. Can you try again and send me an png if it
still fails?
It's still pretty bad; see the attached image.
This is weird. I've just checked out a fresh master, did a make clean
and
On 9/20/09 9:04 AM, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote:
Carl Sorensen wrote:
Remaining things to do would be
* add define-parser-variable-properties.scm to build (whimper...)
No (whimper...) needed here; this is trivial to do. Just add an entry to
scm/lily.scm.
On 9/20/09 9:41 AM, Valentin Villenave v.villen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
This seems like a good idea to me. However, I'm not really strong on parser
variables. But if this does work, I think it would be an improved way of
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your work on this. I think this is excellent architectural
support for the future.
On 9/20/09 2:11 PM, Michael Käppler xmichae...@web.de wrote:
I think what now should be done is to check all assoc-get calls whether
they should use strict_checking or not.
In some
31 matches
Mail list logo
