Re: OSX 10.5+
On 23.02.2010, at 02:18, Graham Percival wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 07:31:37PM +0100, James Bailey wrote: As I understand it, the critical problems previously had with lilypond on 10.5 (and now 10.6) have been resolved. And since the issue was just raised on the -user list. Would it be useful now to simply have the PPC/Intel binaries (labeled as such)? I don't understand. This page looks pretty clear to me: http://lilypond.org/~graham/website/macos-x.html Shows x86 / PPC. The text says Intel / G3 and G4. What's the issue? Cheers, - Graham I should add, while the new website is awesome, it's not the website that new users necessarily go to. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: OSX 10.5+
On 23.02.2010, at 02:18, Graham Percival wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 07:31:37PM +0100, James Bailey wrote: As I understand it, the critical problems previously had with lilypond on 10.5 (and now 10.6) have been resolved. And since the issue was just raised on the -user list. Would it be useful now to simply have the PPC/Intel binaries (labeled as such)? I don't understand. This page looks pretty clear to me: http://lilypond.org/~graham/website/macos-x.html Shows x86 / PPC. The text says Intel / G3 and G4. What's the issue? Cheers, - Graham The issue being that a very intelligent user might go to http:// lilypond.org/install/ instead. Which still has the 10.5 (Leopard), 10.4 (Intel) and 10.3 and newer links. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 02:15:55 schrieb Graham Percival:
> Unless the government of Canada webservers are giving me a
> different HTML file than you, your "checking" is flawed.
[...]
> We are not doing research or private study. We are not doing
> criticism or review. We are not doing news reporting. We are not
> an educational institution or library.
Sorry, guys, but isn't this discussion drifting into the wrong direction? The
original post was about the GERMAN wikipedia example, so I don't see where
Canadian copyright law comes into play.
With German pages, one can argue that they are intended for a German-speaking
audience[*], so at most Austrian, Swiss and German copyright law is relevant.
([*] That's what the copyright lawyer told us in the law course (for law
students!) on austrian copyright law, which I took last year...)
In Austrian Copyright law (UrhG) there is a section concerning quotations, and
one can very well argue that the use on wikipedia fulfills the requirements:
"§ 46. Zulässig sind die Vervielfältigung und die Verbreitung sowie der
öffentliche Vortrag, die Rundfunksendung und die öffentliche
Zurverfügungstellung:
1. wenn einzelne Stellen eines veröffentlichten Sprachwerkes angeführt
werden;"
translated:
"§ 46. Permitted are the reproduction and dissemination as well as the
public lecture, the broadcasting and public provision:
1. when individual short passages of a published literary work are
given;"
("einzelne Stellen" ~ "single spots" means only some short passages, not whole
chapters, etc. The Stockhausen example is definitely a "einzelne Stelle")
Unfortunately, §2 of the UrhG doesn't explicitly say that music counts as
"literary work", but the headline says that the law is for literary works,
music, fine arts and for films. §2 then goes on to define "literary works",
"fine arts" and "films", but leaves out musical art. However, one can also
well argue that music art does not fulfill the definitions of fine arts and
films, and thus best fits into "literary works" (which includes even computer
programs, as the law explicitly mentions!).
So, according to Austrian law, I would tend to say that the Stockhausen
excerpt is okay. I don't know any particularities of German copyright law,
though. And German law is definitely more important for the German wikipedia
than Austrian law.
Cheers,
Reinhold
--
--
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
* Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
* http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
* LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: OSX 10.5+
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 07:31:37PM +0100, James Bailey wrote: > As I understand it, the critical problems previously had with lilypond on > 10.5 (and now 10.6) have been resolved. And since the issue was just > raised on the -user list. Would it be useful now to simply have the > PPC/Intel binaries (labeled as such)? I don't understand. This page looks pretty clear to me: http://lilypond.org/~graham/website/macos-x.html Shows x86 / PPC. The text says Intel / G3 and G4. What's the issue? Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 03:59:04PM +0100, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 22 Feb 2010, at 15:26, Graham Percival wrote: > >>> Read it yourself. Does the use affect the market of the original >>> work? >>> That would suffice, as copyright law is essentially a business law. >> >> No. Fair dealing under Canadian law is not a matter of "satisfy >> any one requirement". It's "satisfy all requirements". > > You have the law here: > http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III- > gb:s_29 ... >> How seriously have you read the act? > > So I have at least checked the relevant section. Unless the government of Canada webservers are giving me a different HTML file than you, your "checking" is flawed. In that location, I see: Research or private study 29. Criticism or review 29.1 News reporting 29.2 then there are additional exemptions for education institutions, libraries, archives, and museums, etc. We are not doing research or private study. We are not doing criticism or review. We are not doing news reporting. We are not an educational institution or library. What's so hard to understand? - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Fix #943 (input/regression/slur-broken-trend.ly broken) (issue203054)
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 22:12 +, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: > On 2010/02/22 21:10:25, joeneeman wrote: > > > For vertical positioning to work, it's important that > after-line-breaking be > > called before Page_layout_problem does its work. Can you check that > this is > > still the case? > > The regression tests check out (though that's hardly surprising, > considering all this patch does is restore some code to its former > position). I get the attached regression on input/regression/page-spacing-rehearsal-mark.ly. (I don't know why the automatic comparison doesn't catch it...) > Doesn't Page_layout_problem come after the production of Paper_score > objects? That's where the processing ultimately takes place (in > Paper_score::get_paper_systems ()). It comes after the creation of Paper_score objects but before the systems are actually drawn (because we need to figure out how much to stretch them before we draw them). Cheers, Joe new.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document old.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [PATCH] Support scheme0-scheme1-scheme2-scheme3 argument pattern for markup commands.
On 2/22/10 11:01 AM, "Neil Puttock" wrote: > On 22 February 2010 17:31, Carl Sorensen wrote: > >> I'm not sure exactly what the current proposed syntax is (we've had some >> discussions off-list, but not for a while). I would have expected him to >> add Markup 0-5, instead of SCM 0-4. But I haven't seen the specifics of his >> final proposal yet. > > In that case, I think it's better to wait until there's a patch for > review which needs this functionality. OK by me. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Fix #943 (input/regression/slur-broken-trend.ly broken) (issue203054)
On 2010/02/22 21:10:25, joeneeman wrote: For vertical positioning to work, it's important that after-line-breaking be called before Page_layout_problem does its work. Can you check that this is still the case? The regression tests check out (though that's hardly surprising, considering all this patch does is restore some code to its former position). Doesn't Page_layout_problem come after the production of Paper_score objects? That's where the processing ultimately takes place (in Paper_score::get_paper_systems ()). http://codereview.appspot.com/203054/show ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Fix #943 (input/regression/slur-broken-trend.ly broken) (issue203054)
http://codereview.appspot.com/203054/diff/1/2 File lily/system.cc (left): http://codereview.appspot.com/203054/diff/1/2#oldcode193 lily/system.cc:193: } For vertical positioning to work, it's important that after-line-breaking be called before Page_layout_problem does its work. Can you check that this is still the case? http://codereview.appspot.com/203054/show ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Lilypond gcc45 build problem
Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 19:09 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Dave Plater: Hi Dave, > lilypond is no longer building for openSUSE Factory due to the switch to > gcc45. I noticed from the git logs that you have worked on > spacing-spanner.cc recently which is where gcc45 fails. Yes, I noticed. I received a > solution from the gcc maintainer of openSUSE which didn't work, it > stopped the build error but then the documentation build failed on all > repositories. Are these related? Does lily produce any output at all? > Lilypond-2.13.13 also has the same problem and although > the problem isn't that urgent now but in a few months lilypond will fail > to build on all distros that have gcc45. Yes... it's always nice to have lily building with the latest and greatest - although I see that gcc-4.5.0 development currently has about 250 regressions, half of them serious ones. I'm not sure if debugging this right now is helpful. I note that it builds and runs with gcc-4.5.0 from 20091018 - haven't verified if the doc builds. Greetings, Jan. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Missing fetaNumber/Dynamic glyphs following fontconfig changes
On 30 January 2010 19:44, Patrick McCarty wrote: > I could reproduce this too, so I must have flubbed something in the > process of running `make check'. Minor update: I also flubbed something while checking the svg output, since I ran the test file using ly:set-option; I hadn't noticed that this doesn't set music-strings-to-paths (since that happens in lily.scm). Running a test file properly (and reverting your revert :), I get the following error, together with a useless svg file: /home/neil/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/lily-library.scm:709:25: In procedure ly:font-name in expression (ly:font-name font): /home/neil/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/lily-library.scm:709:25: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting Font_metric): "DejaVuSans" Cheers, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
OSX 10.5+
As I understand it, the critical problems previously had with lilypond on 10.5 (and now 10.6) have been resolved. And since the issue was just raised on the -user list. Would it be useful now to simply have the PPC/Intel binaries (labeled as such)? ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [PATCH] Support scheme0-scheme1-scheme2-scheme3 argument pattern for markup commands.
On 22 February 2010 17:31, Carl Sorensen wrote: > I'm not sure exactly what the current proposed syntax is (we've had some > discussions off-list, but not for a while). I would have expected him to > add Markup 0-5, instead of SCM 0-4. But I haven't seen the specifics of his > final proposal yet. In that case, I think it's better to wait until there's a patch for review which needs this functionality. Cheers, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Instanciable scheme engraver (issue216066)
nicolas.sce...@gmail.com writes:
> Reviewers: ,
>
> Message:
> Hi,
>
> This is a proof-of-concept for instanciable scheme engravers, with
> private instance slots.
>
> There is at least one issue that I have to solve before this is
> commitable, as this shows the following warning:
>
> Warning : Attempting to remove nonexisting listener.
> Warning : Attempting to remove nonexisting listener.
Not a problem with your code, I guess, since you get the warning with
the old code and the following naively reduced source as well:
\layout {
\context {
\Voice
\consists
#(let ((instance-counter 0))
(set! instance-counter (1+ instance-counter))
(let ((instance-id instance-counter)
(private-note-counter 0))
`((listeners
(note-event
. ,(lambda (engraver event)
(set! private-note-counter (1+ private-note-counter))
(let ((text (ly:engraver-make-grob engraver 'TextScript
event)))
(ly:grob-set-property! text 'text
(format "~a.~a" instance-id
private-note-counter)
}
}
<<
\relative c'' { c4 d e f }
\\ \relative c' { c4 d e f }
>>
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [PATCH] Support scheme0-scheme1-scheme2-scheme3 argument pattern for markup commands.
On 2/22/10 10:12 AM, "Neil Puttock" wrote: > On 22 February 2010 16:39, Carl Sorensen wrote: >> Any concerns about me pushing this patch? > > What's the proposed markup command which needs this? Thomas is trying to clean up the ChordName markup definition with a standard format that should allow representation of all of the standard chord name systems we've been able to identify. The thought is that there will be things like the root, the quality, the alterations, the bass, and the stack. Then a chord name could be defined by passing each of these in. I'm not sure exactly what the current proposed syntax is (we've had some discussions off-list, but not for a while). I would have expected him to add Markup 0-5, instead of SCM 0-4. But I haven't seen the specifics of his final proposal yet. Thomas's approach has been to try to separate out the specifics of the new ChordName algorithms from the infrastructure required to support them, so I think that's why this patch came along. > > LGTM, but will need documenting in Extending 2.2.3. Yes, it will. I'll take care of that. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Fix #943 (input/regression/slur-broken-trend.ly broken) (issue203054)
Reviewers: Patrick McCarty,
Message:
On 2010/02/21 21:09:54, Patrick McCarty wrote:
Is the 'after-line-breaking callback for BarNumber necessary?
I'm not quite sure; though it's unlikely anbody's going to change the
BarNumber stencil to a tall column (which would need the callback to
prevent it running off the top of the page), the regression tests seems
to depend on the callback: if you remove it, rehearsal marks, volte and
metronome marks are placed too far from staves.
Description:
Fix #943 (input/regression/slur-broken-trend.ly broken)
* move after-line-breaking processing back into System::post_processing
()
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/203054/show
Affected files:
M lily/system.cc
Index: lily/system.cc
diff --git a/lily/system.cc b/lily/system.cc
index
1be38ea570ab8520b531eb6ff02a9eee032fdbba..c6257c7d310ef7bc1c0de7816a374a91492d0973
100644
--- a/lily/system.cc
+++ b/lily/system.cc
@@ -185,12 +185,6 @@ System::do_break_substitution_and_fixup_refpoints ()
{
System *child = dynamic_cast (broken_intos_[i]);
child->all_elements_->remove_duplicates ();
- for (vsize j = 0; j < child->all_elements_->size (); j++)
- {
- Grob *g = child->all_elements_->grob (j);
-
- (void) g->get_property ("after-line-breaking");
- }
}
if (be_verbose_global)
@@ -314,6 +308,13 @@ System::pre_processing ()
void
System::post_processing ()
{
+ for (vsize j = 0; j < all_elements_->size (); j++)
+{
+ Grob *g = all_elements_->grob (j);
+
+ (void) g->get_property ("after-line-breaking");
+}
+
Interval iv (extent (this, Y_AXIS));
if (iv.is_empty ())
programming_error ("system with empty extent");
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [PATCH] Support scheme0-scheme1-scheme2-scheme3 argument pattern for markup commands.
On 22 February 2010 16:39, Carl Sorensen wrote: > Any concerns about me pushing this patch? What's the proposed markup command which needs this? LGTM, but will need documenting in Extending 2.2.3. Cheers, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [PATCH] Support scheme0-scheme1-scheme2-scheme3 argument pattern for markup commands.
Any concerns about me pushing this patch?
Carl
On 2/22/10 8:55 AM, "Thomas Morgan" wrote:
> Handle in `lily/lexer.ll' and `lily/parser.yy'.
> ---
> lily/lexer.ll |2 ++
> lily/parser.yy |4
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lily/lexer.ll b/lily/lexer.ll
> index ccc8dee..c4bc7b9 100644
> --- a/lily/lexer.ll
> +++ b/lily/lexer.ll
> @@ -555,6 +555,8 @@ BOM_UTF8\357\273\277
> return MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_MARKUP1_MARKUP2;
> else if (tag == ly_symbol2scm
> ("scheme0-scheme1-scheme2"))
> return MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2;
> + else if (tag == ly_symbol2scm
> ("scheme0-scheme1-scheme2-scheme3"))
> + return MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2_SCM3;
> else {
> programming_error ("no parser tag defined for
> this markup signature");
> ly_display_scm (s);
> diff --git a/lily/parser.yy b/lily/parser.yy
> index d2f3a8c..2f9a391 100644
> --- a/lily/parser.yy
> +++ b/lily/parser.yy
> @@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ If we give names, Bison complains.
> %token MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_MARKUP2_MARKUP3
> %token MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_MARKUP1_MARKUP2
> %token MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2
> +%token MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2_SCM3
> %token MARKUP_LIST_HEAD_EMPTY
> %token MARKUP_LIST_HEAD_LIST0
> %token MARKUP_LIST_HEAD_SCM0
> @@ -2472,6 +2473,9 @@ simple_markup:
> | MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2 embedded_scm embedded_scm embedded_scm {
> $$ = scm_list_4 ($1, $2, $3, $4);
> }
> + | MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2_SCM3 embedded_scm embedded_scm
> embedded_scm embedded_scm {
> + $$ = scm_list_5 ($1, $2, $3, $4, $5);
> + }
> | MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1 embedded_scm embedded_scm {
> $$ = scm_list_3 ($1, $2, $3);
> }
> --
> 1.6.3.3
>
>
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
[PATCH] Support scheme0-scheme1-scheme2-scheme3 argument pattern for markup commands.
Handle in `lily/lexer.ll' and `lily/parser.yy'.
---
lily/lexer.ll |2 ++
lily/parser.yy |4
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lily/lexer.ll b/lily/lexer.ll
index ccc8dee..c4bc7b9 100644
--- a/lily/lexer.ll
+++ b/lily/lexer.ll
@@ -555,6 +555,8 @@ BOM_UTF8\357\273\277
return MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_MARKUP1_MARKUP2;
else if (tag == ly_symbol2scm
("scheme0-scheme1-scheme2"))
return MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2;
+ else if (tag == ly_symbol2scm
("scheme0-scheme1-scheme2-scheme3"))
+ return MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2_SCM3;
else {
programming_error ("no parser tag defined for
this markup signature");
ly_display_scm (s);
diff --git a/lily/parser.yy b/lily/parser.yy
index d2f3a8c..2f9a391 100644
--- a/lily/parser.yy
+++ b/lily/parser.yy
@@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ If we give names, Bison complains.
%token MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_MARKUP2_MARKUP3
%token MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_MARKUP1_MARKUP2
%token MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2
+%token MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2_SCM3
%token MARKUP_LIST_HEAD_EMPTY
%token MARKUP_LIST_HEAD_LIST0
%token MARKUP_LIST_HEAD_SCM0
@@ -2472,6 +2473,9 @@ simple_markup:
| MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2 embedded_scm embedded_scm embedded_scm {
$$ = scm_list_4 ($1, $2, $3, $4);
}
+ | MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1_SCM2_SCM3 embedded_scm embedded_scm
embedded_scm embedded_scm {
+ $$ = scm_list_5 ($1, $2, $3, $4, $5);
+ }
| MARKUP_HEAD_SCM0_SCM1 embedded_scm embedded_scm {
$$ = scm_list_3 ($1, $2, $3);
}
--
1.6.3.3
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Problem building lilypond 2.12.3 with gcc45
On 02/22/2010 01:39 PM, Dave Plater wrote: > On 02/22/2010 09:02 AM, Dave Plater wrote: > >> Hi, I maintain lilypond for openSUSE and factory builds have switched to >> gcc45 and I'm now getting build failures. The build fails at :- >> |rm -f ./out/spacing-spanner.dep; >> DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT="./out/spacing-spanner.dep ./out/spacing-spanner.o" g++ >> -c -fmessage-length=0 -O2 -Wall -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector >> -funwind-tables -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -ggdb -Woverloaded-virtual >> -I/usr/include/python2.6 -I/usr/include/python2.6 -fno-strict-aliasing >> -fmessage-length=0 -fstack-protector -funwind-tables >> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -g -fwrapv -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DNDEBUG >> -I./include -I./out -I../flower/include -I../flower/./out >> -I../flower/include -fmessage-length=0 -O2 -Wall -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >> -fstack-protector -funwind-tables -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -ggdb -O2 >> -finline-functions -g -pipe -pthread -I/usr/include/freetype2 -pthread >> -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 >> -I/usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include -Wno-pmf-conversions -W -Wall -Wconversion >> -o out/spacing-spanner.o spacing-spanner.cc >> spacing-spanner.cc: In static member function 'static std::vector >> Spacing_spanner::get_columns(Grob*)': >> spacing-spanner.cc:41:35: error: expected primary-expression before '*' token >> spacing-spanner.cc:41:36: error: expected primary-expression before '>' token >> make[1]: *** [out/spacing-spanner.o] Error 1 >> >> Has anyone fixed this problem yet? >> Regards >> Dave P >> >> > I've fixed the issue with the help of openSUSE's gcc expert. In > spanner.cc:41, " all = vector::vector (all.begin () + > start," drop the vector:: - constructors should not be called > directly. > I've attached my patch. > Regards > Dave P > The patch breaks lilypond so disregard it but I still have the build problem. Regards Dave P ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 22 Feb 2010, at 15:26, Graham Percival wrote: "The fair dealing clauses[1] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting." Read it yourself. Does the use affect the market of the original work? That would suffice, as copyright law is essentially a business law. No. Fair dealing under Canadian law is not a matter of "satisfy any one requirement". It's "satisfy all requirements". You have the law here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III- gb:s_29 You do not have to qualify for all conditions, in my reading. Your reading is incorrect. Or possibly the wikipedia page is incorrect. The law lists some exceptions; if one is met, this section applies. Then the Supreme Court gives a ruling as an input how to evaluate those. These are though not legal rules or conditions that must all be met - the page does not specify how the evaluation should take place, and also notes that other factors may be relevant. It belongs to the interpretation of the law. I've spent about 10 hours reading the Canadian copyright act (in addition to about 20 hours reading commentary on webpages). No, that's not a lot -- but at least that gives me *some* first-hand knowledge of it. The problem is that the law must be interpreted, and that is done against priniples that may not be in the law. How seriously have you read the act? So I have at least checked the relevant section. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:49:24PM +0100, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: > Why not ask for rights from Stockhausen's copyright owner? If you want to ask them to place it under the GNU FDL or creative commons -- both of which imply **unlimited and unhindered** distribution -- go ahead. I can't imagine that they would accept, though. But why would you bother?! I mean, is the lilypond community seriously so uncreative that we cannot add colors to an existing example!?!? If true, that's pretty sad. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 22 Feb 2010, at 11:50, Graham Percival wrote: > >> "The fair dealing clauses[1] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users >> to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, >> criticism, review, or news reporting." > > Read it yourself. Does the use affect the market of the original work? > That would suffice, as copyright law is essentially a business law. No. Fair dealing under Canadian law is not a matter of "satisfy any one requirement". It's "satisfy all requirements". > You do not have to qualify for all conditions, in my reading. Your reading is incorrect. Or possibly the wikipedia page is incorrect. I've spent about 10 hours reading the Canadian copyright act (in addition to about 20 hours reading commentary on webpages). No, that's not a lot -- but at least that gives me *some* first-hand knowledge of it. How seriously have you read the act? Here's the official version: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Why not ask for rights from Stockhausen's copyright owner? I would try: m...@stockhausen.org Anyway, the fact that the example is an SVG is not too good: it has problems displaying the tuplet numbers, and a pp. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 22 Feb 2010, at 13:32, Johannes Schindelin wrote: I repeat: there is no way that our use of Stockhausen would qualify as "fair dealing" under Canadian copyright law. I cannot speak to copyright law in Germany, Sweden, or other jurisdictions. So what makes you so sure. Is that what a copyright lawyer has told you? Hans, are you a copyright lawyer, ... No. ...willing to give legal advice here, for free? But I haven't made a claim what I think has that status. I sent an meial, trying to clarify with those that do. Whatever your answer, I think that settles that. So your claim is that copyright issues should only be discussed by copyright lawyers? Then it will be hard to write copyright notices and such, and even for the general public to take it into account. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Hi, On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 22 Feb 2010, at 11:50, Graham Percival wrote: > > >I repeat: there is no way that our use of Stockhausen would qualify as > >"fair dealing" under Canadian copyright law. I cannot speak to > >copyright law in Germany, Sweden, or other jurisdictions. > > So what makes you so sure. Is that what a copyright lawyer has told you? Hans, are you a copyright lawyer, willing to give legal advice here, for free? Whatever your answer, I think that settles that. Ciao, Dscho ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 22 Feb 2010, at 11:50, Graham Percival wrote: That said, I can't see how using that exerpt could possibly qualify under Canada's "fair dealing" provisions in the copyright act. Distributing that de.wikipedia.org page in Canada would thus constitute an infringement of copyright. Since it is a small snippet, not affecting the commercial value of the original work, it should be acceptable also under Canada's "fair dealing" interpretation by its Suporeme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada Please read that webpage. "The fair dealing clauses[1] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting." We are not doing research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting about Stockhausen. The context is advertising or documentation for an open-source project. There is **no** provision for Canadian fair dealing for such usage. Even if our use somehow qualified as "research" -- which it emphatically does *not* -- then we'd fail on the "alternatives to the dealing". Was there "a non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available? Certainly. It would take me 15 minutes to write some music which showed the same typographical features of the Stockenhausen, without infringing on that copyright. Read it yourself. Does the use affect the market of the original work? That would suffice, as copyright law is essentially a business law. But it is also a small snippet. And possibly: purpose is private study. You do not have to qualify for all conditions, in my reading. I repeat: there is no way that our use of Stockhausen would qualify as "fair dealing" under Canadian copyright law. I cannot speak to copyright law in Germany, Sweden, or other jurisdictions. So what makes you so sure. Is that what a copyright lawyer has told you? The official LilyPond documentation should not include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. Formally, you only have to comply with the local copyright law. What is the "local copyright law"? Is it Canada, where I wrote most of the docs? Is it the UK, where I currently reside? Is it the Netherlands, which is where Han-Wen and Jan are from? Is it from America, where the webserver might reside? (I don't know where it is) The country from which it is distributed. If that country in the trade war against the US declares that it will no longer acknowledge US copyright (I forget the country, but they're talking about this), then can I (legally) download any Hollywood movies I want from servers in that country? I don't think so. It is up to you to decide, but they cannot go after those that distribute it. There was a case where material distributed from Russia was taken up in New York, but it would mean that US law would be applicable for activities done in Russia - and the vice versa, which is why no country would admit it. In addition to distributing the webpages ourselves, a number of people redistribute the lilypond docs; I don't think we should try getting Debian in trouble by including any copyright-infringing material. It is really up to them to learn about their local copyright law and make sure they comply. We're not in the business of making it hard for linux distributions to supply lilypond to their users. That's precisely why we're keeping legally questionable material out of our documentation. They only need to know what is valid in their country. In worst case, they could put a link for the docs. It is quite impossible for anyhow to know and follow the copyright laws in all the about 200 countries in the world. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Problem building lilypond 2.12.3 with gcc45
On 02/22/2010 09:02 AM, Dave Plater wrote: > Hi, I maintain lilypond for openSUSE and factory builds have switched to > gcc45 and I'm now getting build failures. The build fails at :- > |rm -f ./out/spacing-spanner.dep; > DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT="./out/spacing-spanner.dep ./out/spacing-spanner.o" g++ > -c -fmessage-length=0 -O2 -Wall -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector > -funwind-tables -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -ggdb -Woverloaded-virtual > -I/usr/include/python2.6 -I/usr/include/python2.6 -fno-strict-aliasing > -fmessage-length=0 -fstack-protector -funwind-tables > -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -g -fwrapv -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DNDEBUG > -I./include -I./out -I../flower/include -I../flower/./out -I../flower/include > -fmessage-length=0 -O2 -Wall -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector > -funwind-tables -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -ggdb -O2 -finline-functions -g > -pipe -pthread -I/usr/include/freetype2 -pthread -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 > -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 > -I/usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include -Wno-pmf-conversions -W -Wall -Wconversion > -o out/spacing-spanner.o spacing-spanner.cc > spacing-spanner.cc: In static member function 'static std::vector > Spacing_spanner::get_columns(Grob*)': > spacing-spanner.cc:41:35: error: expected primary-expression before '*' token > spacing-spanner.cc:41:36: error: expected primary-expression before '>' token > make[1]: *** [out/spacing-spanner.o] Error 1 > > Has anyone fixed this problem yet? > Regards > Dave P > I've fixed the issue with the help of openSUSE's gcc expert. In spanner.cc:41, " all = vector::vector (all.begin () + start," drop the vector:: - constructors should not be called directly. I've attached my patch. Regards Dave P Index: lilypond-2.12.3/lily/spacing-spanner.cc === --- lilypond-2.12.3.orig/lily/spacing-spanner.cc +++ lilypond-2.12.3/lily/spacing-spanner.cc @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ Spacing_spanner::get_columns (Grob *me_g vsize end = binary_search (all, (Grob*) me->get_bound (RIGHT), &Paper_column::less_than); - all = vector::vector (all.begin () + start, + all = vector (all.begin () + start, all.begin () + end + 1); return all; } ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 10:36 uur [tijdzone +], schreef Graham > Percival: > >> Maybe I'm missing something, but I see nothing in that Stockhausen >> example that isn't covered by Trevor Baca's example: >> http://lilypond.org/~graham/website/examples.html > > The colours! Wow, that never crossed my mind. Good point! Our Examples page has red lines for Gregorian, but it would be nice to add some more. I think they would fit best in the educational application. Or maybe the Schenkerian analysis? Added as http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1018 Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 10:36 uur [tijdzone +], schreef Graham Percival: > Maybe I'm missing something, but I see nothing in that Stockhausen > example that isn't covered by Trevor Baca's example: > http://lilypond.org/~graham/website/examples.html The colours! Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl| http://lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Hans Aberg wrote: > > On 22 Feb 2010, at 04:26, Graham Percival wrote: > >> That said, I can't see how using that exerpt could possibly >> qualify under Canada's "fair dealing" provisions in the copyright >> act. Distributing that de.wikipedia.org page in Canada would thus >> constitute an infringement of copyright. > > Since it is a small snippet, not affecting the commercial value of the > original work, it should be acceptable also under Canada's "fair dealing" > interpretation by its Suporeme Court: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada Please read that webpage. "The fair dealing clauses[1] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting." We are not doing research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting about Stockhausen. The context is advertising or documentation for an open-source project. There is **no** provision for Canadian fair dealing for such usage. Even if our use somehow qualified as "research" -- which it emphatically does *not* -- then we'd fail on the "alternatives to the dealing". Was there "a non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available? Certainly. It would take me 15 minutes to write some music which showed the same typographical features of the Stockenhausen, without infringing on that copyright. I repeat: there is no way that our use of Stockhausen would qualify as "fair dealing" under Canadian copyright law. I cannot speak to copyright law in Germany, Sweden, or other jurisdictions. >> The official LilyPond documentation >> should not include any material which infringes on copyright in >> any country. > > Formally, you only have to comply with the local copyright law. What is the "local copyright law"? Is it Canada, where I wrote most of the docs? Is it the UK, where I currently reside? Is it the Netherlands, which is where Han-Wen and Jan are from? Is it from America, where the webserver might reside? (I don't know where it is) If that country in the trade war against the US declares that it will no longer acknowledge US copyright (I forget the country, but they're talking about this), then can I (legally) download any Hollywood movies I want from servers in that country? I don't think so. >> In addition to distributing the webpages ourselves, >> a number of people redistribute the lilypond docs; I don't think >> we should try getting Debian in trouble by including any >> copyright-infringing material. > > It is really up to them to learn about their local copyright law and make > sure they comply. We're not in the business of making it hard for linux distributions to supply lilypond to their users. That's precisely why we're keeping legally questionable material out of our documentation. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 07:58 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Werner > LEMBERG: >> > In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond >> > documentation: The official LilyPond documentation should not >> > include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. >> >> I fully support this point of view. > > Right - however, I think the example is very nice and it may not > be difficult to totally de-Stockhausen it, while keeping its > attractiveness. Hmm, does Stockhausen have a free work that > we can cite? Maybe I'm missing something, but I see nothing in that Stockhausen example that isn't covered by Trevor Baca's example: http://lilypond.org/~graham/website/examples.html ... wait, correction: the Stockhausen uses pedals, which are not covered anywhere in our examples. Still, if we desperately want to demonstrate pedals, I'm certain that we can find other material for that. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On 22 Feb 2010, at 04:26, Graham Percival wrote: see the german wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/LilyPond too bad it's under dispute. Is it? I don't see such a remark. It is only stated that the picture shows copyrighted material which can only be cited legally as a very small snippet. I can't read German, or speak about German copyright law. And for that matter, I'm not a trained lawyer in Canadian law (or anywhere else). This email does not constitute legal advice. That said, I can't see how using that exerpt could possibly qualify under Canada's "fair dealing" provisions in the copyright act. Distributing that de.wikipedia.org page in Canada would thus constitute an infringement of copyright. Since it is a small snippet, not affecting the commercial value of the original work, it should be acceptable also under Canada's "fair dealing" interpretation by its Suporeme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond documentation (Jan and Werner haven't raised the issue, but I'm certain that many readers will be wondering about this), my position has not changed: The official LilyPond documentation should not include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. Formally, you only have to comply with the local copyright law. In addition to distributing the webpages ourselves, a number of people redistribute the lilypond docs; I don't think we should try getting Debian in trouble by including any copyright-infringing material. It is really up to them to learn about their local copyright law and make sure they comply. If they distribute it from the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use You may not want to use such examples, though for other reasons. Hans ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:23:37 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 07:58 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Werner LEMBERG: > In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond > documentation: The official LilyPond documentation should not > include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. I fully support this point of view. Right - however, I think the example is very nice and it may not be difficult to totally de-Stockhausen it, while keeping its attractiveness. Hmm, does Stockhausen have a free work that we can cite? Jan. Very unlikely. I can offer to donate something similar to Cage's "Cheap Imitation" in the case of Satie's Socrate... Arno -- http://www.facebook.com/waschk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: nice stockhausen excerpt
Op maandag 22-02-2010 om 07:58 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Werner LEMBERG: > > In answer to any question about using such examples in the LilyPond > > documentation: The official LilyPond documentation should not > > include any material which infringes on copyright in any country. > > I fully support this point of view. Right - however, I think the example is very nice and it may not be difficult to totally de-Stockhausen it, while keeping its attractiveness. Hmm, does Stockhausen have a free work that we can cite? Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl| http://lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Looking for Lilypond developer to create a special version for different music score model
> I didnt have time to write the songs in the notation. However, I have > another sample, the easier one. This time, the song is "Amazing Grace" -- > translated to Bahasa Indonesia. (yes, it's in Indonesia). > Can you take a look and see if it make sense? The notes are simple enough. > The score is for choir, SATB. > Let me know if you have questions for me later. Thanks! Still would be better to have two scores in parallel. Espacially for rhythm: for example what means .5 . .5 and others ? But I am just curious, I am however not the one that can help you in writing a new engraver (but it looks doable). Frédéric ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
