Matthias Kilian wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote: >> So, having read the past discussion and looked through source code etc. >> it seems like there are several general observations, some conclusions, >> and some questions. >> >> Observations: >> >> (1) Lilypond isn't violating any copyright/license requirements. > > So what's the point of this discussion?
Part is that there's some general consensus that it would be nice to move Lilypond to GPLv3, or at least to have the chance to do so. Hence some of the practical points on how to make that easier. The other part is that there are some aspects of the way Lilypond code and docs are managed with respect to licensing that are confusing or problematic -- lack of licensing notices in source code, lack of copyright or licensing notices in docs. Those really should be fixed and better practices established for maintaining them. I would see that as pretty urgent actually, far more important than the 'what license?' question, because it relates to LP's ability to track who wrote what and which conditions they made it available under. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
