Graham Percival wrote Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:26 PM
I was confused because Joseph keeps on talking about wanting to
copy code from the documentation, and Trevor Daniels recently
said you know what? you guys are nutters. Do whatever you want
with my stuff, now shut up and do work.
...
Trevor Daniels wrote:
For example, we seem to have lost Joseph's really
promising work to document contemporary music.
Not lost. :-) Actually, the delay came at least in part because I was
looking through problems of functionality related to my docs. I'll post
about this on -user.
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
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
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
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
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:03:05AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
The manuals include the FDL, so I'd argue that it's clear that the
sources are under the same license. I'd argue the same about the
source files, actually.
This is basically about good (unambiguous)
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
But we *don't* have a licensing situation on a file-by-file
basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
else[2] is GPLv2.
[1] it would be very useful if somebody could create an example to
replace
Graham Percival wrote:
Bugger the GNU project guidelines. They're not the be-all and
end-all of good project mangement. In many ways, they're pure
rubbish. Toodle-pip, cheers, and all that.
(I'm trying to be more British... I was really surprised at the
use of cheers here. It's a
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:19:20PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
But we *don't* have a licensing situation on a file-by-file
basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
else[2] is GPLv2.
What about
In message 4ab5056a.9010...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes
[1] Where the licensing issue might be important is this: what if
someone forks Lilypond and adds a bunch of their own code with a
different but compatible license statement -- like GPLv2+? It helps
In message 1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost, John Mandereau
john.mander...@gmail.com writes
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
But we *don't* have a licensing situation on a file-by-file
basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 19:45 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman a
écrit :
The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make the argument that the
snippet
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 extracting it for any CC stuff.
... err wait, are we talking about
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Aarrgghh.
The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make the argument that the
snippet is too small to qualify for
In message 4ab53f73.1080...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Aarrgghh.
The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
whoever wrote the
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Anthony W. Youngman
lilyp...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote:
(I don't know, but there's been a fair bit of discussion, on and off, on
debian legal as to whether it is even *possible* for some people to consign
their work to the public domain - the *law* apparently
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:45:46 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
In message 1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost, John Mandereau
On the opposite, note that snippets from LSR are public domain, not FDL.
Aarrgghh.
The snippets are not public
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:05:35AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later. I was thinking about
unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
got GUB working.
Great, that should simplify matters A LOT. Where in the
Graham Percival wrote:
The beginnings of the manuals. In my restructuring, that's now in
macros.itexi, although this may well move to a third macro file.
Hmm, I just noticed that the copyright years are messed up... I'll
fix that fairly soon.
Brilliant. So as far as the docs are concerned
Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 23:47 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham
Percival:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:37:46PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Yes, but
Carl Sorensen wrote:
Amen to that. If only they had made some kind of an accomodation clause
that would have allowed projects with mixed v2 and v3 licenses to go
forward, as long as the v3 license terms were followed on the combined
package (e.g. no tivoization, and following the patent
Francisco Vila wrote:
2009/9/11 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
Those stats are very old now.
They are now up to date, just in case.
http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/
Thanks very much for this! :-)
It leads to the question -- already in mind from browsing the git log --
who
Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 00:24 +0200, Joseph Wakeling a écrit :
But anyway, I'm willing to do the typing side of it. I just need you to
clarify exactly what I should put: presumably GPLv2 for code files and
GFDLv1.1 for docs are the base licenses, but would you and Jan approve
putting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Freitag, 11. September 2009 11:14:39 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
Francisco Vila wrote:
2009/9/11 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
Those stats are very old now.
They are now up to date, just in case.
2009/9/11 Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com:
FWIW, I've now added a .mailcap file, so names like wl or Andrew Hawyluk
or
Carl Sorensen should now be combined with the correct names Werner
Lemberg, Andrew Hawryluk and Carl D. Sorensen.
So git shortlog or git shortlog -s should now
2009/9/11 Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com:
So git shortlog or git shortlog -s should now give less contributors and a
better overview.
Please add
Francisco Vila fr...@salvia.(none)
Francisco Vila fr...@salvia.org
so that Paco Vila gets redirected to me (that is the purpose of
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:14:39AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
It leads to the question -- already in mind from browsing the git log --
who is 'fred'?
Please get into the habit of searching -devel before asking such
questions. The answer is on the top 10 results for fred on a
lilypond-devel
In message 1252655677.8830.236.ca...@heerbeest, Jan Nieuwenhuizen
janneke-l...@xs4all.nl writes
Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 23:47 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham
Percival:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:37:46PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, Graham Percival
Joseph Wakeling wrote Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:10 PM
What would be good is if as many contributors as possible can
reply to
this email just to OK (i) my putting copyright/licensing notices
in the
files they have contributed to and (ii) their licensing
preferences for
their
In message 3ccb7043-cf70-480b-84d1-27332fda9...@math.su.se, Hans Aberg
hab...@math.su.se writes
I don't see much point in continuing this discussion further because I
don't think you understand what the real problems (or solutions)
are, or
what the requirements of the GPL (in any version) are.
In message 4aa828d1.5000...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
... which I'm sure will NOT hold up in court, so I propose we really
end this
discussion. Please leave the lawyering to the lawyers and lets go back to
coding.
Please
On 10 Sep 2009, at 08:35, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Or later will admit later restrictions, or latest will impose
them quietly on old sources.
BINGO!
And this is EXACTLY the problem with your suggestion. You are
RETROACTIVELY CHANGING THE LICENCE!
As has been pointed out elsewhere,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 09:30:57 schrieb Hans Aberg:
I'm not a lawyer, but if I came across v2 or latest wording, my
advice would be to treat it as v2 only because to do anything else
IS TOO DANGEROUS. So your wording is self-defeating
On 10 Sep 2009, at 09:42, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 09:30:57 schrieb Hans Aberg:
I'm not a lawyer, but if I came across v2 or latest wording, my
advice would be to treat it as v2 only because to do anything else
IS TOO DANGEROUS. So your wording is
In message eb078a48-7666-4486-bf94-a29a94abf...@math.su.se, Hans Aberg
hab...@math.su.se writes
You can't simply go around and change licenses, unless you are the
copyright
holder!
But you are the copyright owner of the LilyPond code.
Copyright belongs to the person who wrote the code
On 10 Sep 2009, at 11:20, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
You can't simply go around and change licenses, unless you are the
copyright
holder!
But you are the copyright owner of the LilyPond code.
Copyright belongs to the person who wrote the code (sometimes).
Unless explicitly signed over
Hans Aberg wrote:
In GNU projects, the normal thing is that contributors sign a paper
which is sent in to GNU that they donate the code to GNU.
Nope.
For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring
copyright to the FSF; that is a separate question. If you transfer
the
Don Armstrong wrote:
This is now my problem,[1] so I'll attempt to get it addressed at some
point in the future. [I'd certainly like to see Lilypond at least
clear up some of the issues so that the above can become correct.]
Hmm, I noted you were listed as the Debian maintainer on Launchpad's
On 10 Sep 2009, at 14:46, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
In GNU projects, the normal thing is that contributors sign a paper
which is sent in to GNU that they donate the code to GNU.
Nope.
For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring
copyright to the FSF; that is a separate
The source material could be public domain, but the snippet itself is
a 'derivative work' and is thus under the copyright of whoever made
it.
-Travis
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Valentin Villenave
v.villen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 16:21:34 schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 15:28 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Valentin
Villenave:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
In message 4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes
Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
to follow these rules:
-- for code, GPLv2 or later or a more liberal compatible license;
NO NO NO.
Some people are likely to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 17:12:42 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
In message 4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes
Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
to follow
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Because they are not allowed by copyright law. They cannot change the license
if the file is only mostly their work. They can only change the license if
the file is SOLELY their work.
Well, technically they can release their bit of the file under their own
license,
Travis Briggs wrote:
The source material could be public domain, but the snippet itself is
a 'derivative work' and is thus under the copyright of whoever made
it.
What I recall from submitting to LSR was that I was asked to agree that
by submitting this snippet, I was (a) consigning it to the
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
(There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond
which are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things
like input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it
cannot be modified.[2])
If
Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
happened without me. :(
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
(3) Individual code files contain copyright notices but not licensing
notices. It's not clear if these notices have been maintained
In message 200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com, Reinhold
Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 17:12:42 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
In message 4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes
Now, future policies -- I
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:36:08AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
I think having to sign paperwork (esp. having your employer sign
something) is something that puts a big barrier up for potential
contributors. I am not sure it is worth the effort.
I would not want
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:36:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
(There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it cannot
be modified.[2])
I'm not
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:10:53PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
(There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it cannot
be modified.[2])
If
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
happened without me. :(
The reason that I am against changing anything beyond making existing
terms clearer is that it generates a huge amount of legal
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message 200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com, Reinhold
Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes
... So we'll have the same problem again in some years... By then it will be
even harder tracking down all contributors,
On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
happened without me. :(
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
3) If we can't find some people, or if they don't agree to
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message 200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com, Reinhold
Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes
... So we'll have the same problem again in some years... By then it will be
even harder tracking down all contributors,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:37:46PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
3) If we can't find some people, or if they don't agree to
whatever
Graham Percival wrote:
Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
happened without me. :(
:-)
The manuals include the FDL, so I'd argue that it's clear that the
sources are under the same license. I'd argue the same about the
source files, actually.
This is basically
Graham Percival wrote:
Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later. I was thinking about
unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
got GUB working.
Great, that should simplify matters A LOT. Where in the source tree is
the explicit statement of the 'or later' ... ?
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Graham Percival wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:36:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
(There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
wrapper code under v2/v3 to expose the pubic interface or whatever
it is that people who do this kind of stuff do. I don't have that
kind of a hobby. :)
What's that for a hobby? Exposing the pubic interface?
I came up with a .mailmap file for our project that might be of help
on identifying unique contributors from git log even if they have
multiple email addresses. I think it is not appropriate to show it
pubic[ahem] publicly; I'll send you it if you want.
Main contributors are graphically visible
2009/9/11 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
Those stats are very old now.
They are now up to date, just in case.
http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/
A pity that the .mailmap file is of no effect here.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org
www.csmbadajoz.com
On 9 Sep 2009, at 18:04, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
In addressing this there are several policies that can be put in
place NOW:
(1) All new files added to the code or docs must contain an
unambiguous copyright AND licensing notice: I suggest in this
case GPLv2 or later for code,
Hans Aberg wrote:
I think that the formulation should be GPL, v2 or latest, because
otherwise those that want to redistribute the code can choose which
version, which is not the intent - v3 is in fact more restrictive with
respect to tivoization. Only one GPL should be applicable. The
On 9 Sep 2009, at 20:30, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
I think that the formulation should be GPL, v2 or latest, because
otherwise those that want to redistribute the code can choose which
version, which is not the intent - v3 is in fact more restrictive
with
respect to tivoization. Only one GPL
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
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
Hans Aberg wrote:
You might check with the GNUers if it is the intention. It means that
sources can be tivoized, even in the face of the new v3.
It's GPLv2, and not the 'or later', that allows for tivoization -- but
you have to question whether this is a serious risk for Lilypond.
Linking is
On 9 Sep 2009, at 22:37, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
You might check with the GNUers if it is the intention. It means that
sources can be tivoized, even in the face of the new v3.
It's GPLv2, and not the 'or later', that allows for tivoization ...
Right. Do you want v2 to applicable by a
Hans Aberg wrote:
As long as you use or later, tivoization and other new restriction in v3 is
allowed.
No, as long as you use _GPLv2_, whether it's GPLv2 or later or GPLv2 and
only GPLv2, tivoization is possible. 'GPLv3 or later' would not allow
tivoization.
It is probably simplest to just
On 9 Sep 2009, at 23:14, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
As long as you use or later, tivoization and other new
restriction in v3 is allowed.
No, as long as you use _GPLv2_, whether it's GPLv2 or later or GPLv2
and
only GPLv2, tivoization is possible. 'GPLv3 or later' would not allow
tivoization.
Hans Aberg wrote:
The point is that if you want to be up-to-date with latest GPL in both
new restrictions and permissions, the only way to do it is to refer to
the latest version when the source is published. Or later will admit
later restrictions, or latest will impose them quietly on old
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mittwoch, 9. September 2009 23:30:19 schrieb Hans Aberg:
The point is that if you want to be up-to-date with latest GPL in both
new restrictions and permissions, the only way to do it is to refer to
the latest version when the source is
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Joseph
Wakelingjoseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
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
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
... which I'm sure will NOT hold up in court, so I propose we really end this
discussion. Please leave the lawyering to the lawyers and lets go back to
coding.
Please understand the motivation for OPENING this discussion -- not to
debate which license or what
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Jan and I know that the current situation wrt copyright headers and
license notes is not ideal, but we never could bring ourselves to fix
it, because there always were more important things to do.
Nevertheless, if someone feels energetic to take this on, they have my
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Joseph
Wakelingjoseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Jan and I know that the current situation wrt copyright headers and
license notes is not ideal, but we never could bring ourselves to fix
it, because there always were more important
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
I think having to sign paperwork (esp. having your employer sign
something) is something that puts a big barrier up for potential
contributors. I am not sure it is worth the effort.
I would not want to see users in general having to sign a contributor
agreement or any
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
(6) Confusion has come from
(i) a Debian copyright file for the package, apparently last
updated in 2004, stating that Lilypond is 'v2 or later'
This is now my problem,[1] so I'll attempt to get it addressed at some
point in the future.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 00:24:35 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Jan and I know that the current situation wrt copyright headers and
license notes is not ideal, but we never could bring ourselves to fix
it, because
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Reinhold
Kainhoferreinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
However, I don't want to sign my contributions over to the FSF, since I want
my contributions to help Lilypond in whatever ways might be needed, even
commercial or proprietary. I don't want them as weapons in the
On 9/9/09 4:24 PM, Joseph Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Jan and I know that the current situation wrt copyright headers and
license notes is not ideal, but we never could bring ourselves to fix
it, because there always were more important things to
On 8 Sep 2009, at 02:42, Joe Neeman wrote:
If you meant ghostscript in particular, then I guess we'll have to
stay with ghostscript 8.70 for now.
We don't link to ghostscript -- we merely call the command line
program
-- so the GPL doesn't apply.
I think that copyright only applies to
Le lundi 07 septembre 2009 à 16:42 -0700, Patrick McCarty a écrit :
The part that (I think) is relevant to LilyPond is below:
[...]
The licensing of the Free version of the core Ghostscript code has
been changed to GPLv3 or later. Previously, the core code was GPLv2
only.
John Mandereau wrote:
Even if any program in LilyPond linked with gs, we'd have no problem
since LilyPond is licensed under GPLv2+ (GPL v2 or later).
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
That was the point of the re-opening of discussion -- my query on that
very point in relation to the new
Op dinsdag 08-09-2009 om 12:34 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Joseph
Wakeling:
The
copyright file in my distro (Ubuntu) refers to GPLv2 or later
Which file are you referring to, and what does it say?
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
Avatar®:
Op dinsdag 08-09-2009 om 13:02 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Joseph
Wakeling:
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Op dinsdag 08-09-2009 om 12:34 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Joseph
Wakeling:
The
copyright file in my distro (Ubuntu) refers to GPLv2 or later
Which file are you referring to,
Op dinsdag 08-09-2009 om 13:16 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Jan
Nieuwenhuizen:
Not only out-of-date, but also /wrong/. I just checked our sources,
a very early one and the one that was claimed to be packaged
git show release/{1.0.1,2.2.2}:{COPYING,main.cc}
git show
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Op dinsdag 08-09-2009 om 13:16 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Jan
Nieuwenhuizen:
Not only out-of-date, but also /wrong/. I just checked our sources,
a very early one and the one that was claimed to be packaged
git show release/{1.0.1,2.2.2}:{COPYING,main.cc}
I wrote:
Second: Lilypond is part of the GNU project and GNU programs typically
have the 'or later' option, and indeed there is a perception that they
will upgrade to the latest GPL by default.
... see the general information on making a package part of the GNU project:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Hans Aberghab...@math.su.se wrote:
If you meant ghostscript in particular, then I guess we'll have to
stay with ghostscript 8.70 for now.
We don't link to ghostscript -- we merely call the command line program
-- so the GPL doesn't apply.
I think that
Op dinsdag 08-09-2009 om 11:51 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Hans Aberg:
On 8 Sep 2009, at 02:42, Joe Neeman wrote:
I think that copyright only applies to how it is redistributed
Almost, copyright is about copying.
So its GPL version will apply
No, it does not, as Joe pointed out.
Can you
On 8 Sep 2009, at 14:33, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
I think that copyright only applies to how it is redistributed, and
not how
it is used. Mac OS X LilyPond has a gs in its distribution. So its
GPL
version will apply to that part when (re-)distribution. So you need
to make
sure that when you
On 8 Sep 2009, at 15:06, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Can you please read the GNU GPL before spreading too much nonsense?
I have now looked through it, and found nothing of it. So you will
have to clarify.
Hans
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
Am Dienstag, 8. September 2009 16:19:43 schrieb Hans Aberg:
On 8 Sep 2009, at 15:06, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
On 8 Sep 2009, at 02:42, Joe Neeman wrote:
I think that copyright only applies to how it is redistributed
Almost, copyright is about copying.
Quote?
So its GPL version will
On 8 Sep 2009, at 15:06, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
On 8 Sep 2009, at 02:42, Joe Neeman wrote:
I think that copyright only applies to how it is redistributed
Almost, copyright is about copying.
Quote?
So its GPL version will apply
No, it does not, as Joe pointed out.
Can you please
On 8 Sep 2009, at 16:51, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Can you please read the GNU GPL before spreading too much nonsense?
It is not about the GPL, but the WIPO copyright treaty, and copyright
law. The GPL cannot override that.
gs is GPL v3+, so anything that links to it has to be compatible to
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
