Re: Footnote separator line too close
Thanks for the suggestion, but what I need is to leave more space before
the first footnote text.
I have made progress: the bug arises only when you don't have a
superscript, (e.g. when you are not using the numbering) **and** when
you have the footnote markup text long enough to extend underneath the
horizontal text.
You can see this if you take the only example in the documentation
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/creating-footnotes
that does not use a superscript and extend the line of text:
\book {
\header { tagline = ##f }
\relative c' {
\footnote * #'(0.5 . -2) \markup { \italic * The first note - with this
footnote text extending a long way across the page is too close to the
line above }
a'4 b8
\footnote \markup { \super $ } #'(0.5 . 1)
\markup { \super $ \italic The second note }
e c4
\once \override Score.FootnoteItem #'annotation-line = ##f
b-\footnote \markup \tiny + #'(0.1 . 0.1)
\markup { \super + \italic Editorial } \p
}
}
With the first footnote line extended the hline is unpleasantly close to
the text.
The workaround it to include a superscript :)
Richard
On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 07:08 +1100, Nick Payne wrote:
On 03/04/13 06:24, Richard Shann wrote:
I've found that the line dividing the footnote from the music is rather
close to the footnote text.
I can see I need to override this definition
footnote-separator-markup = \markup \fill-line { \override #'(span-factor .
1/2) \draw-hline }
but I can't see what to add to provide more space under the line ... any
suggestions?
Just use \vspace within the footnote markup. eg:
\version 2.17.15
\relative f' {
\footnote * #'(2 . -1) \markup\teeny { \column { \left-align { \line {
\concat { \vspace #1 \lower #0.8 \super { * }
At this point the performer may insert an improvisation in the
form of a
\italic Cadenza furiosa } } \line { } } } } c4
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL
Zitat von Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net: Hello all, A question which has come up, and where I'm not sure what the answer or intention is. Lilypond is licensed under the GPL and reading through the license file, I didn't come across any granted exceptions (IIRC the fonts have an exception for embedding them into a document). So, how does this affect things when e.g. you \include a file in your personal Lilypond project? While I can't see it affecting distribution of a PDF or other graphical version of the score produced, the lack of an exception surely means that any .ly file distributed would be obliged to be released under the GPL or a compatible license. (For example, english.ly is explicitly licensed under GPLv3+ without any exception. Yes, I know that these days you should use \language english, but that's beside the point.) I was sure this must have been discussed previously, but cannot find anything in past mailing list discussions. So can anyone advise on whether this was indeed discussed before -- and if so, what were the conclusions? I can't imagine it's intentional that Lilypond copyleft should extend so far as the .ly files of scores created by users, but as things stand I'm concerned that this may be the strict letter of the licensing. I'd welcome being pointed to obvious reasons why I'm wrong. Thanks best wishes, -- Joe I think there is one thing this discussion proves impressively: Things are much less non-ambiguous than most of the participants assume. If we can't find an agreement on how the license under which LilyPond is distributed affects the use of LilyPond it is very clear that we need some _qualified_ input. So I suggest that Joe makes a draft for an email requesting such input, the most important aspects being: - how does the use of the GPL affect the use of its functions, - given the complication of .ly files being a hybrid of user document and source code. The question of licensing a library that is separate from the LilyPond distribution (which was the original motive for this questions) is basically independent from that. Best Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: force bookpart to start on left-hand page?
Hi Kieren,
On 10/01/13 18:24, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi all,
Is there a way to force a bookpart to start on a left-hand page?
(i.e., to leave a blank page if necessary)
There's no direct way of doing this easily at the moment. I think this
is worth forwarding to the bugs list as an enhancement request, probably
getting hold of
\on-the-fly \fromproperty header:first-page-number and
working out the current page and wrapping these up as recto? and verso?
predicates, so you could do some scheme-function type stuff
forcelefthandpage = #(define-scheme-function ( layout )
(let* ((current-page (stuff to get hold of current output page))
(fpageprop (get hold of header first page))
(thepageno (- current-page fpageprop)))
(if (even? thepageno)
(#{ \pagebreak
\markup {\null} #})) ) )
Probably we could supply builtin recto? and verso? predicates so this
could be simplified to
(if (recto?)
(#{...#}))
Cheers, Ian
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL
On 03/04/13 03:21, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On 04/03/2013 01:14 AM, Anthonys Lists wrote: If your work does not include any of their work, then you don't need any permission to not copy their work! :-) But I'm not talking about copying. I'm talking about the right to use. And if you read the GPL, version 2 (I presume 3 has similar wording) says the use of this work is outside the scope of this licence. The GPL explicitly rejects anything to do with the USE of the work. You presume wrongly. Section 2 of GPLv3 opens with: Dare I suggest you look at section zero? The second paragraph of which says, and I quote: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. In other words, the GPL restricts itself to the activities covered by copyright law, and EXPLICITLY does not cover USING the program, which it assumes is a right for which permission is not required. And I took a look at version 3. Take a look at section 2, which starts, and I quote: All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. Note that it affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified program. It's not GRANTING permission, it's AFFIRMING permission. In other words, it assumes you have that right regardless of what the licence says, and it's making that explicit. Worded differently, it's saying you DO NOT need the copyright holder's permission to USE the program. So there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do that will cost you the right to run an unmodified copy of the software on your computer. What you seem unable to comprehend is that it is the law that gives the GPL its teeth. Therefore, if the law says you don't need the GPL, then the GPL is absolutely powerless! (and meaningless :-) Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL
On 03/04/13 10:22, li...@ursliska.de wrote: I think there is one thing this discussion proves impressively: Things are much less non-ambiguous than most of the participants assume. Something I've learnt from my time on Groklaw is that the GPL is, in fact, extremely clear. The problem is that many people read into it what they want to see. I've been guilty of that in the past :-) And the problem here is very simple - it is the question What constitutes a derived work?. Which Joseph is convinced is determined by the wording of the GPL, and Tim, me, and probably most other people are convinced is determined by the law. Because if the law says you don't need a licence, how are the copyright holders going to enforce said licence? It's as simple as that! Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL
On 04/03/2013 01:08 PM, Wols Lists wrote: Dare I suggest you look at section zero? The second paragraph of which says, and I quote: You're talking about GPL version 2, not GPL version 3. Compare: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html ... where the second paragraph of Section 0 is exactly as you describe, with: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html ... which is the current and (to this case) relevant version of the GPL. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL
Can we all agree now that the law, justice, and licences are three different entities. And it would take the opinion of someone well versed in all three to quiet this ruckus. And furthermore even if we have a solid answer from a respected source, either justice or law could still supersede such an opinion if ever put to an legal actual contestation no matter how well worded a licence's permissiveness is worded or then misconstrued. Especially since the licence is contrary to the nature of normal copyright laws which in fact vary from nation state to nation state. Shane On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: On 04/03/2013 01:08 PM, Wols Lists wrote: Dare I suggest you look at section zero? The second paragraph of which says, and I quote: You're talking about GPL version 2, not GPL version 3. Compare: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html ... where the second paragraph of Section 0 is exactly as you describe, with: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html ... which is the current and (to this case) relevant version of the GPL. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: RemoveEmptyStaves and the ambitus_engraver
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Roman Stawski ro...@stawski.fr wrote:
I'm not top posting.
It seems that \RemoveEmptyStaves doesn't play very well with the
ambitus_engraver.
In this example, I'm trying to get the treble staff removed in the
first two systems, and appear with an ambitus on the third.
It is removed correctly in the first system. But reappears in the
second. If I comment out the line (*), then the staves are removed as
needed, but the ambitus is too of course.
Interesting. If i were you, i'd place the skips inside MainSequence
and have the ambitus appear at the very beginning, and keep that first
system alive (which makes
some sense in my opinion):
\new Staff \relative c' {
\clef treble
\new MainSequence {
\skip 1*8
\repeat unfold 2 { e1 e'1 }
}
}
hth,
Janek Warchoł
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: LilyPond featured in Demo videos.
Subject: LilyPond featured in Demo videos. From: richard.sh...@virgin.net To: lilypond-user@gnu.org Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:00:56 + Dear LilyPond, LilyPond features in a demo video that I have posted at https://vimeo.com/62188678 to publicise the new version 1.0.0 of Denemo, just released. It points out the quality of LilyPond's typesetting without manual tweaking. It also shows LilyPond adjusting the layout of the music after transposition without any further user intervention (though this example was not chosen to illustrate this point, and another example with dynamics, tempo changes etc would do that better). Thank you, Richard. These examples are making me consider Denemo for note entry.I had never taken the time to see what it could really offer. I'm glad it's not a dead project as it appeared to be in the past. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: vowel aligned lyrics - want to improve it
On 22 February 2010 09:01, Wolf Alight wolfali...@gmail.com wrote: What a way to start the monday morning! Thank you Neil! I will put this in the Snippet Repository. I just thought of one enhancement I want to make and one feature that came up: (snip) Hi, Someone on the French users mailing list would like to align lyrics on the first vowel. http://lilypond-french-users.1298960.n2.nabble.com/Alignement-des-paroles-sur-la-premiere-voyelle-td7579353.html I found this thread but searching the LSR with the keyword vowel gives no result (and, of course, nothing about this in the doc). 1. Could someone confirm me this is the latest version of the code for vowel aligned lyrics feature? 2. If it's effectively not on the LSR, could it be added? 3. It would be great to have vowel aligned lyrics directly in LilyPond; could this be added to the tracker as feature request? Thanks! Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: vowel aligned lyrics - want to improve it
Hi Xavier, Someone on the French users mailing list would like to align lyrics on the first vowel. http://lilypond-french-users.1298960.n2.nabble.com/Alignement-des-paroles-sur-la-premiere-voyelle-td7579353.html I found this thread but searching the LSR with the keyword vowel gives no result (and, of course, nothing about this in the doc). 1. Could someone confirm me this is the latest version of the code for vowel aligned lyrics feature? 2. If it's effectively not on the LSR, could it be added? 3. It would be great to have vowel aligned lyrics directly in LilyPond; could this be added to the tracker as feature request? Ultimately, it would be great to have two settings: 1. glyphs which don't count for width calculations (e.g., the LyricText amazing— should be centred as if it were just amazing); and, 2. glyphs which don't count for left-edge determination (e.g., all consonants, if you want vowel-aligned lyrics). Just wanted to throw my feature request into this thread. =) Thanks, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
more custom articulations...
hello list, with the help of the code provided by harm, i've been able to create my own custom articulations, but i still have some problems i haven't been able to solve on my own. the two more important right now are: 1. studying script.scm i see that in the definition of each articulation there's an expression of this form: (script-stencil . (feta . (lcomma . rcomma)) is it possible to define an articulation using glyphs other than the script glyphs? i mean glyphs in the feta font but belonging to arrowheads or noteheads or flags or whatever. 2. following harm's code, i learned to define articulations using a previously defined custom stencil, thus: (stencil . ,my-crazy-stil) what i can't figure out is how can i define a pair of glyphs, to be used for up- and down-stem notes, as in the default lilypond articulations above? thanks for any pointers. best, lj ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL
Wols Lists antlists at youngman.org.uk writes:
On 03/04/13 10:22, lists at ursliska.de wrote:
I think there is one thing this discussion proves impressively: Things
are much less non-ambiguous than most of the participants assume.
Something I've learnt from my time on Groklaw is that the GPL is, in
fact, extremely clear.
The problem is that many people read into it what they want to see. I've
been guilty of that in the past
And the problem here is very simple - it is the question What
constitutes a derived work?.
At risk of prolonging the discussion (which, I'll state again, really
doesn't need much further prolongation without actual legal
input)... Here are the questions where I would be interested to know
the FSF's legal position. I think these questions provide additional
detail on What constitutes a derived work?
1. Is Lilypond an interpreter, or more like a compiler/linker pair?
(The GPL's covered work seems to depend on the idea of linking. This
idea is fuzzy to me. Intuitively, it seems to me that Lilypond code
that merely invokes LP commands is more in the realm of interpreter
behavior -- including \include.) It's hard for me to imagine how LP
could be considered a compiler/linker.
2. Related to #1, I see the phrase intimate data communication
floating around as the standard for distinguishing a covered work
from one that is not covered. Possible test case:
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #'(ly:make-moment 1 4) \times 2/3 { c8 [
d e ] d [ e f ] } g4
Does it count as intimate data communication to quote a scheme
function *invocation* in the LP code? (I tend to think if yes, if
merely calling a GPL'ed function in an interpreter requires the
calling code to be GPL, it would essentially erase the distinction
between interpreting and compiling/linking -- but the GPL supports
this distinction! So I highly doubt the answer would be yes.)
3. Scheme functions in a .ly file that invoke LP scheme functions
(without modifying or quoting those functions) would seem to me to
fall in the same category. The question for the FSF is whether it
constitutes linking if I write (ly:make-moment 1 4) in a scheme
function. Intuition would say no, it's not linking, but since when
does the law have anything to do with what is intuitively right? [1]
4. It seems almost certain to me that, if you copy the text of a
scheme function from LP's source into your .ly or .ily and modify it
(if you don't modify it, why would you bother copying it?), at least
this part of the ly code then becomes a derivative work requiring
GPL. As I understand it, the reason to require the GPL when releasing
derivative works is that modifications enhance the behavior of a GPL
program, and those enhancements should be contributed back to the
community. Releasing the entire LP source code for a piece, /including
a copied/modified function definition/, under restrictive copyright
would violate that intent.
5. In #4's case, is there a distinction between the GPL'ed new scheme
code and the Lilypond score code that invokes the new function? I
guess, if LP's processing of the score code is considered
interpreting the code, then you could make a distinction between
*providing* a new function to the interpreter (GPL) and *using* the
interpreter (non-GPL). More concretely -- could you release your new
function as a GPL extension to LP in one file, and *use* the function
in another file that is not GPL (where the non-GPL file contains no
scheme definitions)?
I don't know the answer to these questions. From what I've read on
this list, nobody else *really* knows the answer either. We have a lot
of educated guesses (with varying degrees of education). So at this
point, I'll say explicitly that I'm not interested in opinions about
the questions, and I'm not going to respond to those. (Though, my
opinion about them seems close to David K's reading.) I write these
out with the hope of clarifying (?) the questions and suggesting some
questions for Joseph to ask in his letter.
hjh
[1]
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_cut_of_bagel_dough_YEhNdwO7ZwlUO555GQ4
rNN
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
