Re: Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond

[Christopher R. Maden]

On 10/29/19 11:28 PM, Solomon Foster wrote:

"Christopher R. Maden"  writes:

The important part is to have files for each tune that define all
the info but which don’t actually *do* anything.  That gives you
the flexibility to do different things with that info in different
contexts.


Is there a technical reason to do this, or is it purely for your 
organizing?  I ask because I'm autogenerating my Lilypond from ABC

anyway, so my typical approach would be to do different contexts by
tweaking the ABC -> Lilypond translator.


Yes.  If one file does something (like has a \score block), then if I 
include it, I’ll get that score at the point where the file is included. 
 So if I have information I want to use in more than one context, I 
should isolate it in a file that generates no output, and have any 
output generation in discrete files.



I have a helper file called tunes.ly which handles layout and
making a MIDI of a dozen instruments playing in unison.


That would be very interesting to see, I think?


It’s at http://music.maden.org/images/9/90/Tunes.ly >.


PS chanteyman, eh?  https://whiskyandwater.wordpress.com/


Cool!  We certainly know people in common — I opened for Tom Kastle a 
few years ago.  I am a Working Chanteyman sometimes at Mystic Seaport 
Museum in southeastern Connecticut (and any ’Ponders who find themselves 
in the area should definitely say hi), and just got back from giving a 
concert at the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park.  The 
Draken Harald Hårfagre, which I guess you saw at Bay City Tall Ships, is 
currently berthed at Mystic.


~crism
--
Chris Maden, text nerd & chanteyman
http://crism.maden.org/ >
http://music.maden.org/ >
“Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me...” — Emma Lazarus

Re: Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond

[Solomon Foster]

"Christopher R. Maden"  writes:

>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:21:48 -0400
> From: "Christopher R. Maden" 
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond
> Message-ID: <3268a110-e979-6431-9eb8-5cbe4c20b...@maden.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 10/29/19 1:14 PM, Solomon Foster wrote:
> > I've been using Lilypond to render fiddle tunes for nearly a decade
> > now, and I'm looking at taking the next step -- namely making a
> > proper, large scale tunebook with it.  While the book I'm working on
> > right now has hundreds of tunes, it's not mine to redistribute, so
> > I've put together a quick PDF with some of my own tunes so you can
> > get the idea what sort of music I'm talking about:
> > http://www.harmonyware.com/tunes/chunes.pdf
>
> Pretty sure I’ve answered this question on this list before...
>
> For each individual tune, I have one file (tunename_tune.ly) which only
> defines variables, and a wrapper (tunename.ly) which makes a PDF and a
> MIDI using those variables.  Then I have a big wrapper (tunebook.ly)
> which includes all the tunename_tune.ly files and makes a book out of
> them.
>
> The important part is to have files for each tune that define all the
> info but which don’t actually *do* anything.  That gives you the
> flexibility to do different things with that info in different contexts.
>

Is there a technical reason to do this, or is it purely for your
organizing?  I ask because I'm autogenerating my Lilypond from ABC anyway,
so my typical approach would be to do different contexts by tweaking the
ABC -> Lilypond translator.


> I have a helper file called tunes.ly which handles layout and making a
> MIDI of a dozen instruments playing in unison.
>

That would be very interesting to see, I think?

Thanks,
Sol

PS chanteyman, eh?  https://whiskyandwater.wordpress.com/

-- 
Solomon Foster: colo...@gmail.com
HarmonyWare, Inc: http://www.harmonyware.com

Re: Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond

[Solomon Foster]

Hi Mike,

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:34 PM Mike Kilmer  wrote:

> I did something along these lines a couple of years ago using something
> called lytex, which if I recall correctly sort of combines Tex typesetting
> with Lilypond.
>
> You can check out the main file (and entire codebase) here:
> https://github.com/MikeiLL/hymnal-Vol-II/blob/master/lilypond/hymnal.lytex
> .
>
> I forget what I was using Arara for, but I think that the way I have it
> set up Arara needs to be configured on your rendering computer to render
> the tex file and then that compiles.
>
> There’s also something called lilypond-book, but I think that’s more for
> including small clips of music within text.
>

I thought lilypond-book was what processed .lytex files?

Either way, going to full-fledged TeX seems like overkill for my purposes
-- but I will definitely keep it in mind if I find myself spending a lot of
time fighting against Lilypond's text handling.

Thanks,
Sol

-- 
Solomon Foster: colo...@gmail.com
HarmonyWare, Inc: http://www.harmonyware.com

Re: Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond

[Solomon Foster]

Hi Ralph,

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:22 PM Ralph Palmer 
wrote:

> Please take a look at the collection I've done of fiddle tunes for viola,
> and let me know if it looks like what you want. I'm on a long road trip,
> and won't have access to my computer for another month, but I think I can
> access my LY files, and, if not, I should be able to explain what I did.
> You can download the PDFs of my collection at :
> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1euNCa3b7xbmr8lDaUubwc5O1h31_bBaQ
>
> Yes!  I mean, it's not the exact formatting I'd like to use, but it looks
like you've solved the putting centered text under the tunes, not breaking
them across pages, and having an index.  That's most of the major issues
I'm worried about.  I'd love to see your LY files to see how you are doing
this.

Thanks so much,
Sol

PS It's so trippy seeing tunes I know in alto clef!

-- 
Solomon Foster: colo...@gmail.com
HarmonyWare, Inc: http://www.harmonyware.com

Re: Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond

[Ralph Palmer]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 11:16 AM Solomon Foster  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've been using Lilypond to render fiddle tunes for nearly a decade now,
> and I'm looking at taking the next step -- namely making a proper, large
> scale tunebook with it.  While the book I'm working on right now has
> hundreds of tunes, it's not mine to redistribute, so I've put together a
> quick PDF with some of my own tunes so you can get the idea what sort of
> music I'm talking about: http://www.harmonyware.com/tunes/chunes.pdf
>
> As usual, every time I try to do something new in Lilypond I butt up
> against the limits of my skills there, and finding what I'm looking for in
> the manuals or snippets only works about half the time.  As such, I thought
> I'd try to post the things stumping me at the moment, and hope someone out
> there has prior art to share or some clever solutions.
>
> 0) Has anyone out there done something like this before?  All the examples
> seem to be big classic music or choral works.  I'd love to have a prior
> example that I could raid for "how to do it" ideas.
>
> 1) How do I stop Lilypond from breaking a \score (one tune) across pages
> just to cram more tunes in the same amount of paper?  That is, splitting a
> \score that requires 2+ pages is fine with me, but I'd rather not start a
> one-page \score at the bottom of one page and finish it on the top of the
> next.
>
> 2) Right now I'm getting the text that goes after a tune by using
> \markuplist and \wordwrap-lines after the related score is complete.  I'd
> love to have a way to let Lilypond know that the \markuplist is logically
> attached to the prior \score.  (If putting it in the actual score is the
> best approach, I'm fine with that, I just haven't been able to figure out
> how to do it.)
>
> 3) I'd also like to be able to add blocks of lyrics after the end of a
> tune which (again) logically attach to the tune.  Right now I've got a
> hacky implementation using \markuplist \column-lines \italic and \line
> which just comes after the \score (like point 2 above), but I'd like to be
> able to ident the lines a bit (or maybe center them?) as well, and all my
> attempts to do so have been laughable failures.  (Seriously, why did my
> attempt to center result in half of each line disappearing!?)
>
> 4) I saw information on creating a table of contents (though I haven't
> tried it yet).  I'm having trouble finding anything on creating an index?
> Given 200+ short tunes, that's probably much more useful, IMO.
>
> Thanks in advance for any and all help,
> Sol
>
> --
> Solomon Foster: colo...@gmail.com
> HarmonyWare, Inc: http://www.harmonyware.com
>

Hi, Sol -

Please take a look at the collection I've done of fiddle tunes for viola,
and let me know if it looks like what you want. I'm on a long road trip,
and won't have access to my computer for another month, but I think I can
access my LY files, and, if not, I should be able to explain what I did.
You can download the PDFs of my collection at :
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1euNCa3b7xbmr8lDaUubwc5O1h31_bBaQ

All the best,

Ralph

>

Re: Using rumor with Docker container on MacOS

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/28/19, 11:36 PM, "Federico Bruni"  wrote:



Il giorno lun 28 ott 2019 alle 01:34, Carl Sorensen 
 ha scritto:
> I have a friend who has seen my lilypond work and would like to get 
> involved with lilypond.
> 
> He would like to use a MIDI keyboard, rather than the keyboard, to be 
> able to input music.
> 
> Frescobaldi with rumor appears to meet his needs, except for the fact 
> that rumor is only supported on Linux systems, and he uses MacOS
> 

Frescobaldi 3 (without Rumor) also supports MIDI input.

Yes, but it only gets the notes.  Rumor will also capture durations.  From 
reading the Frescobaldi docs, there used to be a Rumor plugin.  Now it appears 
we no longer have a Rumor plugin, but the base MIDI input ignores durations.

Is there a way to get durations off a MIDI keyboard in Frescobaldi?

Thanks,

Carl





> I have seen no MacPorts or Homebrew solutions for using rumor.  So I 
> was hoping to set up rumor to use with one of the Docker containers 
> for LilyDev (preferably the lilypond container, rather than the 
> lilydev container).
> 
> I have never used Docker before, but I was able to get it set up with 
> a few false starts (thanks, Federico!).
> 
> Could somebody (maybe Federico) give me some pointers on how I might 
> add rumor to a Docker container?  Or maybe set up a new Docker 
> container?  Since rumor doesn't add the music into Lilypond files, as 
> I understand it, but instead creates music to be pasted into a 
> lilypond source file, I think I could use rumor in a Docker 
> container, and paste the results of a rumor run into a Frescobaldi 
> window.
> 

You should thank Dan Eble for all the work on the Docker container.
I think you can just add the rumor package in the Dockerfile and build 
the image.

Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

> From: Karsten Reincke 
> To: lilypond-user 
> Cc: k.rein...@fodina.de
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:06:32 +0100
> Subject: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL
> By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
> LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
> to the original topic. During this discussion Harm stated, that „maybe
> LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one (Public Domain)“.
> Urs asked whether anything has to be done with respect to the Lilypond
> Snippet Repository. And Andrew asked whether I apprehend not to be able
> to use lilypond due to the fact that it is licensed under the GPL.
>
> I owned these comments by my statement, that I will not be able to use
> and to support the development of LilyPond snippets or libraries (as
> OpenLilyLIb) as long as they are licensed under the GPL. Meanwhile, I
> have written a thorough analysis of the situation. It is published
> under the title „LilyPond, LilyPond Snippets and GPL: About some bad
> side effects“. https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/
>
> For those, who do not want to read such an exhaustive document – I need
> this depth of detail due to my work as the open-source compliance
> officer of a Germany company – let me briefly summarize the line of
> argumentation:
>
> [1] The LilyPond language (interpreted by the LilyPond program which
> creates nice music sheets in the form of PDFs or PNGs) is a programming
> language.
>
> [2] The LilyPond interpreter is licensed under the GPL.
>
> [3] None of the existing Lilypond snippets is licensed under the GPL
> because the interpreter is licensed under the GPL (= no copyleft effect
> from the engine to its input/output). If they are licensed under the
> GPL, then it is a decision of the snippet authors, who also could have
> chosen one of the other open-source licenses.
>
> [4] But if a GPL licensed LilyPond snippet is used by another LilyPond
> code (either by a functional call into the included snippet or by
> literally copying the snippet into the other code), then the copyleft
> effect of the GPL is triggered.
>
> [5] The copyleft effect does not distinguish between distributing the
> source (the LilyPond code) or the compilation (the PDFs, the PNGs): it
> simply requires that the resulting work (the derivative work) has to be
> distributed (published) under the terms of the GPL too.
>
> [6] If one has the right to use, to inspect, to modify and to
> redistribute (share) the (modified) work to/with third persons, then –
> in case of music – one has also the right to make music by using the
> music scores.
>
> (If you doubt these statements, please read
> https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/ )
>
> Hence, now I reached the bad result: Using a GPL licensed LilyPond
> snippet for creating your own music – regardless, whether you use the
> include- or the copy & paste method – evokes that everyone who gets
> your work in any form also and inherently gets the right to use it –
> for any purpose and without having to ask you again. In other words: by
> using any GPL licensed snippet you give away all your rights, even your
> artistic rights.
>
> I hope you understand why I cannot let automatically become my
> scientific or my musical work common property only because I use one
> GPL licensed LilyPond snippet for creating the sheet music of my
> examples or my musical work.
>
> In my article, I also analyze the alternatives. The result is this: The
> best method is to license your work under the MIT license. The worse,
> but possible solution is, to use a creative commons license, especially
> the CC0 license.
>
> With respect to the question of Urs, I can now say: The existing LSR
> snippets can only be relicensed by the original copyright owners. But
> for the next uploaded files, it could be helpful, to recommend (or
> enforce?) their authors to license them under the CC0.
>
> And with respect to your OpenLilyLib, I, unfortunately, have to say
> this: I hope that you can conclude why I am not able to develop my
> snippet ‚harmonily‘ as part of your framework. But I will license it
> under the terms of the MIT. That allows you, to integrate the code into
> your work (But only, if you preserve the MIT license which is part of
> the code. You will not be allowed to relicense my code – which should
> not disturb your work and goals).
>
> In the hope having answered respectfully, appreciatively and clearly
> Karsten
>
>
> --
>   Karsten Reincke/\/\   (+49|0) 170 / 927 78 57
>  Im Braungeröll 31   >oo<  mailto:k.rein...@fodina.de
> 60431 Frankfurt a.M.  \/http://www.fodina.de/kr/



I'm trying to figure out what your issue really is.  I will say that I
generally agree that perhaps there is a better license choice for the LSR
than GPL.

However, I read your article, but it doesn't make sense.

It seems you think that, if you use code from the LSR as part of your input
files, that you are obligat

Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/29/19, 5:46 PM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:

Karsten Reincke  writes:

> By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
> LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
> to the original topic. During this discussion Harm stated, that „maybe
> LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one (Public Domain)“.
> Urs asked whether anything has to be done with respect to the Lilypond
> Snippet Repository. And Andrew asked whether I apprehend not to be able
> to use lilypond due to the fact that it is licensed under the GPL.
>
> I owned these comments by my statement, that I will not be able to use
> and to support the development of LilyPond snippets or libraries (as
> OpenLilyLIb) as long as they are licensed under the GPL. Meanwhile, I
> have written a thorough analysis of the situation. It is published
> under the title „LilyPond, LilyPond Snippets and GPL: About some bad
> side effects“. https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/
>
> For those, who do not want to read such an exhaustive document – I need
> this depth of detail due to my work as the open-source compliance
> officer of a Germany company – let me briefly summarize the line of
> argumentation:
>
> [1] The LilyPond language (interpreted by the LilyPond program which
> creates nice music sheets in the form of PDFs or PNGs) is a programming
> language.
>
> [2] The LilyPond interpreter is licensed under the GPL.
>
> [3] None of the existing Lilypond snippets is licensed under the GPL
> because the interpreter is licensed under the GPL (= no copyleft effect
> from the engine to its input/output). If they are licensed under the
> GPL, then it is a decision of the snippet authors, who also could have
> chosen one of the other open-source licenses.
>
> [4] But if a GPL licensed LilyPond snippet is used by another LilyPond
> code (either by a functional call into the included snippet or by
> literally copying the snippet into the other code), then the copyleft
> effect of the GPL is triggered.
>
> [5] The copyleft effect does not distinguish between distributing the
> source (the LilyPond code) or the compilation (the PDFs, the PNGs): it
> simply requires that the resulting work (the derivative work) has to be
> distributed (published) under the terms of the GPL too.

I disagree with your assessment that calling any code/function makes the
work doing so a derivative of that code (that would concern using
OpenLilyLib code).  I do agree that including/using/changing LSR
snippets as part of your work means deriving from them.  That's why I
would agree that using the GPL for the LSR snippets would not be
desirable since it would introduce a licensing regime where it seems
exaggerated.

I agree with this comment only to the extent that you are distributing the 
source code for your music.  If you only distribute the PDF and/or MIDI output, 
the GPL does not apply, according to the FSF:

" In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too? 
(#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL)
The output of a program is not, in general, covered by the copyright on the 
code of the program. So the license of the code of the program does not apply 
to the output, whether you pipe it into a file, make a screenshot, screencast, 
or video.

The exception would be when the program displays a full screen of text and/or 
art that comes from the program. Then the copyright on that text and/or art 
covers the output. Programs that output audio, such as video games, would also 
fit into this exception.

If the art/music is under the GPL, then the GPL applies when you copy it no 
matter how you copy it. However, fair use may still apply.

Keep in mind that some programs, particularly video games, can have 
artwork/audio that is licensed separately from the underlying GPLed game. In 
such cases, the license on the artwork/audio would dictate the terms under 
which video/streaming may occur. See also: Can I use the GPL for something 
other than software?" [1]


Carl Sorensen

1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL

Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Karsten Reincke  writes:

> On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 00:46 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>> 
>> I disagree with your assessment that calling any code/function makes
>> the
>> work doing so a derivative of that code (that would concern using
>> OpenLilyLib code). [...]
>
> I agree with you, that the question, when and how a piece of code
> definitely becomes a derivative work of another is not finally
> clarified, especially not judically. Therefore, we all have to argue
> and can finally only deliver more or less rational 'rule of thumbs'. I
> argue the following way:
>
> RMS has invented the LGPL to ensure that free code stays free. (weak
> copyleft effect). And he invented the GPL to ensure that no one can use
> the advantages of free software without let his own the advantages
> using software becoome free software too. (strong copyleft effect).
> This is the successful spirit of the free software world. (If you doubt
> this, please consider, why the AGPL has been invented)
>
> Hence, if I use a piece of software as library, snippet, or module,
> then I am using the advantage that I do not have to program that code
> by myself. I am saving costs and time. A very good indicator, that I am
> saving resources by using the prework of another programer, is the call
> of a function (or method or similar). Therefore, calling a function /
> method delivered by a GPL licensed software indicates that I create a
> derivative work and that the strong copyleft effect is triggered.

Which would imply that distributing your LilyPond input combined with
OpenLilylib code would require licensing your LilyPond input under the
GPL.

It doesn't cover the output of running your LilyPond code, namely the
PDF.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Stockhausens tremolo

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi Massimiliano,
See: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=553

E.g.:
\version "2.19.83"
\fixed c' {
  \override Beam.gap-count = #3
  \override Beam.gap = #1
  \repeat tremolo 8 { des32 \once\omit Stem \tweak duration-log #3 g }
}

Cheers,
Pierre

Le mer. 30 oct. 2019 à 00:24, Massimiliano Viel  a écrit :

> Hi everybody,
> I wrote my first score with Lilypond and still a newbie.
> I think the most efficient way to write a tremolo is the one adopted by
> Stockhausen. I send an example as attachment.
> The value is indicated only on the first note, while the second one is
> just a back unstemmed note.
> Is there a way to realize it with Lilypond? Any suggestions?
> Thank you a lot!!
>
> Massimiliano
>
>

Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Karsten Reincke]

On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 00:46 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> 
> I disagree with your assessment that calling any code/function makes
> the
> work doing so a derivative of that code (that would concern using
> OpenLilyLib code). [...]

I agree with you, that the question, when and how a piece of code
definitely becomes a derivative work of another is not finally
clarified, especially not judically. Therefore, we all have to argue
and can finally only deliver more or less rational 'rule of thumbs'. I
argue the following way:

RMS has invented the LGPL to ensure that free code stays free. (weak
copyleft effect). And he invented the GPL to ensure that no one can use
the advantages of free software without let his own the advantages
using software becoome free software too. (strong copyleft effect).
This is the successful spirit of the free software world. (If you doubt
this, please consider, why the AGPL has been invented)

Hence, if I use a piece of software as library, snippet, or module,
then I am using the advantage that I do not have to program that code
by myself. I am saving costs and time. A very good indicator, that I am
saving resources by using the prework of another programer, is the call
of a function (or method or similar). Therefore, calling a function /
method delivered by a GPL licensed software indicates that I create a
derivative work and that the strong copyleft effect is triggered.

> 
> [...]
> 
> MIT license definitely permits relicensing, but of course without
> copyright to the actual code, you would not have standing for
> enforcing
> the license of a relicensed (or non-relicensed) version, so that does
> not make a whole lot of sense for an unmodified version.
> 
No. In case of script languages, the MIT does implicitely prevent this
(and in case of compiled languages too, but there ir does not have any
visible effect):

The MIT license requires that "the above copyright notice and this
permission notice [the MIT license text] shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software". (
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) 

Hence, whenever you take over any substantial piece of my MIT licensed
code, then you have to add the MIT license text and my copyright line
too. Therefore, my code stays MIT licensed.

But of course, you are allowed to combine my code with your work and to
distribute your larger overarching work under any other license. As I
mentioned above: in case of compiled languages, you cannot see my code
anylonger. But in case of interpreted languages at least the
substantial portion is there and stays MIT licensed.

This aspect of distributing the larger work under different license is
often taken as 'relicensing' of the embedded MIT code. But in fact,
that's wrong - even if that does indeed not have any important effect.

best regards and thanks for your quick answer
Karsten

-- 
  Karsten Reincke/\/\   (+49|0) 170 / 927 78 57
 Im Braungeröll 31   >oo<  mailto:k.rein...@fodina.de
60431 Frankfurt a.M.  \/http://www.fodina.de/kr/

Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Urs Liska]

Hi Karsten,

first of all let me comment on your final stance: yes, I think you have 
answered respectfully, appreciatively and clearly. And I have also read 
your longer post. But I think there is one single flawed thought you 
build your argumentation on. I'll leave most of your statements alone 
and basically comment only on that one:


Am 30.10.19 um 00:06 schrieb Karsten Reincke:

By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
to the original topic. During this discussion Harm stated, that „maybe
LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one (Public Domain)“.
Urs asked whether anything has to be done with respect to the Lilypond
Snippet Repository. And Andrew asked whether I apprehend not to be able
to use lilypond due to the fact that it is licensed under the GPL.

I owned these comments by my statement, that I will not be able to use
and to support the development of LilyPond snippets or libraries (as
OpenLilyLIb) as long as they are licensed under the GPL. Meanwhile, I
have written a thorough analysis of the situation. It is published
under the title „LilyPond, LilyPond Snippets and GPL: About some bad
side effects“. https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/

For those, who do not want to read such an exhaustive document – I need
this depth of detail due to my work as the open-source compliance
officer of a Germany company – let me briefly summarize the line of
argumentation:

[1] The LilyPond language (interpreted by the LilyPond program which
creates nice music sheets in the form of PDFs or PNGs) is a programming
language.

[2] The LilyPond interpreter is licensed under the GPL.

[3] None of the existing Lilypond snippets is licensed under the GPL
because the interpreter is licensed under the GPL (= no copyleft effect
from the engine to its input/output). If they are licensed under the
GPL, then it is a decision of the snippet authors, who also could have
chosen one of the other open-source licenses.



Correct.




[4] But if a GPL licensed LilyPond snippet is used by another LilyPond
code (either by a functional call into the included snippet or by
literally copying the snippet into the other code), then the copyleft
effect of the GPL is triggered.



Well, sort-of ...




[5] The copyleft effect does not distinguish between distributing the
source (the LilyPond code) or the compilation (the PDFs, the PNGs): it
simply requires that the resulting work (the derivative work) has to be
distributed (published) under the terms of the GPL too.



... of course it does.
What you are referring to is the relation of software distributed in 
source code or binary/compiled form. But as you outlined before using 
LilyPond (like with all other comparable tools like e.g. LaTeX) does not 
have any implications on *what* you do with it. The intellectual 
property to the *documents* is not affected by the license the compiler 
is distributed with.


If there is a snippet or an openLilyLib package that creates a certain 
sign, let's say a vertical line to indicate a line break in the original 
source (\diplomaticLineBreak in an openLilyLib package) and that package 
is licensed with the GPL then the function is essentially licensed 
identically as any function within the regular LilyPond distribution.


Consider the function \IJ. This is defined in a file gregorian.ly within 
the LilyPond distribution. In order to use \IJ your document has to 
actively \include "gregorian.ly". gregorian.ly is licensed under the 
GPL, but that does *not* require you to license the *music* (or other 
kind of artistic/scientific "work") under the GPL as well. Basically 
*any* use of LilyPond uses function calls into GPLed code, and in that 
sense code within openLilyLib is part of the compiler domain like 
LilyPond, and not part of the document domain where it would affect the 
work you do with it.


However, if you are building a library that uses \IJ and you want to 
distribute your libary *that* triggers the copyleft implications of the 
original file's GPL.
The same is true (and that's probably a practically realistic example) 
if you write a custom openLilyLib package (by including 
oll-core/package.ily) and want to distribute that package you'd be bound 
by the relicensing provisions of the GPL. Still, that doesn't affect the 
artistic or scientific works created *using* the package in any way.


Given the \diplomaticLineBreak above using the function does not put any 
burden on you. OTOH your *scholarly decision* to apply a diplomatic line 
break may be a copyrightable decision in its own right.


Another example: If you use a GPLed document editor that provides the 
ability to use/apply macros, and there is an option to use custom macros 
which may stem from a GPLed macro repository. Such macros might (for 
example) be used to apply a certain styling to a certain type of 
content, e.g. tables. Or a macro to create

Re: Tight spacing in mensural notation (was: Re: Cadenza Senza Tempo Problem)

[Graham King]

> On 29 Oct 2019, at 22:12, Thomas Morley  wrote:
> 
> Am Di., 29. Okt. 2019 um 16:28 Uhr schrieb Graham King
> :
>> 
>> "...and most important you want tight space between all notes as
>> though it's not allowing the space for barlines and more."
>> 
>> This unanswered part of Reggie's question in [1] lead me to re-scratch an 
>> old itch.  In manuscripts and old printed editions of mensural notation, 
>> notes and rests are horizontally densely-spaced without regard for their 
>> musical duration.  I have struggled to reproduce this in lilypond, and the 
>> nearest I can get is this:
>> 
>> \version "2.19.82"
>> 
>> \new Score \with {
>>  \omit TimeSignature
>>  \override SpacingSpanner.spacing-increment = #0.0
>>  \override SpacingSpanner.packed-spacing = ##t
>>  \override NoteHead.style = #'petrucci
>> }
>> 
>> {
>>  \cadenzaOn c'\longa \breve 1 \breve 1 2 2 1 4 4 1 2
>>  % \bar "" \break % uncomment to observe effect
> 
> Don't understand and not sure _which_ effect you mean ...
Oops.  That was a note to myself that I should have deleted before posting.  I 
was thinking that I might have to fake the spacing by using manual 
line-breaking (with ragged-right = ##f).
> 
>>  2 8 8 8 8 c''1 b' a' g'
>> }
>> 
>> It would be good to be able to impose a small amount of horizontal space 
>> between the noteheads, but I'm at a loss to see how that can be done.  Any 
>> ideas?
>> 
>> -- Graham
>> 
>> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-10/msg00420.html
> 
> Probably below may be of some help?
> 
> \paper { ragged-right = ##t }
> 
> \new Score \with {
>  \omit TimeSignature
>  \override SpacingSpanner.spacing-increment = 1
>  \override SpacingSpanner.base-shortest-duration = #(ly:make-moment -3)
>  \override SpacingSpanner.common-shortest-duration = #(ly:make-moment -3)
>  \override NoteHead.style = #'petrucci
> 
>  %% play around with below, probably useful are settings between 2 and ~10
>  \override SpacingSpanner.shortest-duration-space = #2
> }
> 
> {
>  \cadenzaOn
>  c'\longa \breve 1 \breve 1 2 2 1 4 4 1 2
>  %\bar "" \break % uncomment to observe effect
>  2 8 8 8 8 c''1 b' a' g'
> }

That's lovely. \override SpacingSpanner.shortest-duration-space = #3.5 results 
in something that could almost be from Cantiones Sacrae or any of the 
movable-type printed editions of the period.

It will take me a little while to understand fully what you've done, but thanks!

-- Graham

Re: LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Karsten Reincke  writes:

> By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
> LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
> to the original topic. During this discussion Harm stated, that „maybe
> LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one (Public Domain)“.
> Urs asked whether anything has to be done with respect to the Lilypond
> Snippet Repository. And Andrew asked whether I apprehend not to be able
> to use lilypond due to the fact that it is licensed under the GPL.
>
> I owned these comments by my statement, that I will not be able to use
> and to support the development of LilyPond snippets or libraries (as
> OpenLilyLIb) as long as they are licensed under the GPL. Meanwhile, I
> have written a thorough analysis of the situation. It is published
> under the title „LilyPond, LilyPond Snippets and GPL: About some bad
> side effects“. https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/
>
> For those, who do not want to read such an exhaustive document – I need
> this depth of detail due to my work as the open-source compliance
> officer of a Germany company – let me briefly summarize the line of
> argumentation:
>
> [1] The LilyPond language (interpreted by the LilyPond program which
> creates nice music sheets in the form of PDFs or PNGs) is a programming
> language.
>
> [2] The LilyPond interpreter is licensed under the GPL.
>
> [3] None of the existing Lilypond snippets is licensed under the GPL
> because the interpreter is licensed under the GPL (= no copyleft effect
> from the engine to its input/output). If they are licensed under the
> GPL, then it is a decision of the snippet authors, who also could have
> chosen one of the other open-source licenses.
>
> [4] But if a GPL licensed LilyPond snippet is used by another LilyPond
> code (either by a functional call into the included snippet or by
> literally copying the snippet into the other code), then the copyleft
> effect of the GPL is triggered.
>
> [5] The copyleft effect does not distinguish between distributing the
> source (the LilyPond code) or the compilation (the PDFs, the PNGs): it
> simply requires that the resulting work (the derivative work) has to be
> distributed (published) under the terms of the GPL too.

I disagree with your assessment that calling any code/function makes the
work doing so a derivative of that code (that would concern using
OpenLilyLib code).  I do agree that including/using/changing LSR
snippets as part of your work means deriving from them.  That's why I
would agree that using the GPL for the LSR snippets would not be
desirable since it would introduce a licensing regime where it seems
exaggerated.

> In my article, I also analyze the alternatives. The result is this:
> The best method is to license your work under the MIT license. The
> worse, but possible solution is, to use a creative commons license,
> especially the CC0 license.

LSR code is most of the time edited/adapted to particular use cases.
It's not really intended to be retained in a reasonably attributable
form, so I think that even the MIT license makes little sense.  CC0
seems fine to me, as basically an internationalised abstraction of
"Public Domain".

> That allows you, to integrate the code into your work (But only, if
> you preserve the MIT license which is part of the code. You will not
> be allowed to relicense my code – which should not disturb your work
> and goals).

MIT license definitely permits relicensing, but of course without
copyright to the actual code, you would not have standing for enforcing
the license of a relicensed (or non-relicensed) version, so that does
not make a whole lot of sense for an unmodified version.

-- 
David Kastrup

Stockhausens tremolo

[Massimiliano Viel]

Hi everybody,
I wrote my first score with Lilypond and still a newbie.
I think the most efficient way to write a tremolo is the one adopted by 
Stockhausen. I send an example as attachment.
The value is indicated only on the first note, while the second one is just a 
back unstemmed note.
Is there a way to realize it with Lilypond? Any suggestions?
Thank you a lot!!

Massimiliano

LilyPond, LilyPond snippets and the GPL

[Karsten Reincke]

By my last post, I, unfortunately, evoked a discussion concerning
LilyPond, LilyPond snippets, and the GPL which actually did not belong
to the original topic. During this discussion Harm stated, that „maybe
LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one (Public Domain)“.
Urs asked whether anything has to be done with respect to the Lilypond
Snippet Repository. And Andrew asked whether I apprehend not to be able
to use lilypond due to the fact that it is licensed under the GPL.

I owned these comments by my statement, that I will not be able to use
and to support the development of LilyPond snippets or libraries (as
OpenLilyLIb) as long as they are licensed under the GPL. Meanwhile, I
have written a thorough analysis of the situation. It is published
under the title „LilyPond, LilyPond Snippets and GPL: About some bad
side effects“. https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/

For those, who do not want to read such an exhaustive document – I need
this depth of detail due to my work as the open-source compliance
officer of a Germany company – let me briefly summarize the line of
argumentation:

[1] The LilyPond language (interpreted by the LilyPond program which
creates nice music sheets in the form of PDFs or PNGs) is a programming
language.

[2] The LilyPond interpreter is licensed under the GPL.

[3] None of the existing Lilypond snippets is licensed under the GPL
because the interpreter is licensed under the GPL (= no copyleft effect
from the engine to its input/output). If they are licensed under the
GPL, then it is a decision of the snippet authors, who also could have
chosen one of the other open-source licenses.

[4] But if a GPL licensed LilyPond snippet is used by another LilyPond
code (either by a functional call into the included snippet or by
literally copying the snippet into the other code), then the copyleft
effect of the GPL is triggered.

[5] The copyleft effect does not distinguish between distributing the
source (the LilyPond code) or the compilation (the PDFs, the PNGs): it
simply requires that the resulting work (the derivative work) has to be
distributed (published) under the terms of the GPL too.

[6] If one has the right to use, to inspect, to modify and to
redistribute (share) the (modified) work to/with third persons, then –
in case of music – one has also the right to make music by using the
music scores.

(If you doubt these statements, please read 
https://fodina.de/en/2019/lilypond-snippets-and-the-gpl/ )

Hence, now I reached the bad result: Using a GPL licensed LilyPond
snippet for creating your own music – regardless, whether you use the
include- or the copy & paste method – evokes that everyone who gets
your work in any form also and inherently gets the right to use it –
for any purpose and without having to ask you again. In other words: by
using any GPL licensed snippet you give away all your rights, even your
artistic rights.

I hope you understand why I cannot let automatically become my
scientific or my musical work common property only because I use one
GPL licensed LilyPond snippet for creating the sheet music of my
examples or my musical work.

In my article, I also analyze the alternatives. The result is this: The
best method is to license your work under the MIT license. The worse,
but possible solution is, to use a creative commons license, especially
the CC0 license.

With respect to the question of Urs, I can now say: The existing LSR
snippets can only be relicensed by the original copyright owners. But
for the next uploaded files, it could be helpful, to recommend (or
enforce?) their authors to license them under the CC0.

And with respect to your OpenLilyLib, I, unfortunately, have to say
this: I hope that you can conclude why I am not able to develop my
snippet ‚harmonily‘ as part of your framework. But I will license it
under the terms of the MIT. That allows you, to integrate the code into
your work (But only, if you preserve the MIT license which is part of
the code. You will not be allowed to relicense my code – which should
not disturb your work and goals).

In the hope having answered respectfully, appreciatively and clearly
Karsten


-- 
  Karsten Reincke/\/\   (+49|0) 170 / 927 78 57
 Im Braungeröll 31   >oo<  mailto:k.rein...@fodina.de
60431 Frankfurt a.M.  \/http://www.fodina.de/kr/

Re: Tight spacing in mensural notation (was: Re: Cadenza Senza Tempo Problem)

[Thomas Morley]

Am Di., 29. Okt. 2019 um 16:28 Uhr schrieb Graham King
:
>
> "...and most important you want tight space between all notes as
> though it's not allowing the space for barlines and more."
>
> This unanswered part of Reggie's question in [1] lead me to re-scratch an old 
> itch.  In manuscripts and old printed editions of mensural notation, notes 
> and rests are horizontally densely-spaced without regard for their musical 
> duration.  I have struggled to reproduce this in lilypond, and the nearest I 
> can get is this:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
>
> \new Score \with {
>   \omit TimeSignature
>   \override SpacingSpanner.spacing-increment = #0.0
>   \override SpacingSpanner.packed-spacing = ##t
>   \override NoteHead.style = #'petrucci
> }
>
> {
>   \cadenzaOn c'\longa \breve 1 \breve 1 2 2 1 4 4 1 2
>   % \bar "" \break % uncomment to observe effect

Don't understand and not sure _which_ effect you mean ...

>   2 8 8 8 8 c''1 b' a' g'
> }
>
> It would be good to be able to impose a small amount of horizontal space 
> between the noteheads, but I'm at a loss to see how that can be done.  Any 
> ideas?
>
> -- Graham
>
> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-10/msg00420.html

Probably below may be of some help?

\paper { ragged-right = ##t }

\new Score \with {
  \omit TimeSignature
  \override SpacingSpanner.spacing-increment = 1
  \override SpacingSpanner.base-shortest-duration = #(ly:make-moment -3)
  \override SpacingSpanner.common-shortest-duration = #(ly:make-moment -3)
  \override NoteHead.style = #'petrucci

  %% play around with below, probably useful are settings between 2 and ~10
  \override SpacingSpanner.shortest-duration-space = #2
}

{
  \cadenzaOn
  c'\longa \breve 1 \breve 1 2 2 1 4 4 1 2
  %\bar "" \break % uncomment to observe effect
  2 8 8 8 8 c''1 b' a' g'
}


Cheers,
  Harm

Re: public domain and licenses (was: Musicology with Lilypond)

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

> Am 2019-10-29 um 20:11 schrieb ma...@masonhock.com:
> 
> On 10/29, Urs Liska wrote:
>> Well, the LSR website explicitly states that it's contents is in the
>> public domain. If I read correctly your email this would have to be
>> considered illegal, especially given that many snippets there are
>> uploaded not by their original authors but by someone who uses the
>> results of a mailing list discussion 
> 
> Like Andrew B says, it would probably take an international copyright
> lawyer to really sort out the legal status of the LSR.  Saying that
> something is public domain doesn't just make it so.  My understanding is
> that unless the copyright has expired or the work has otherwise entered
> the public domain, all rights are exclusively reserved until the author
> gives up those right.

As I said before, in the US (and probably some other legislations) you can give 
up copyright (i.e. your right of authorship) and put something into public 
domain. And if a sharing site states that sharing puts the contents into public 
domain, then that’s valid – for legislations where this is possible, assumed 
the contributor had the rights at all.

(We had a few cases where list participants posted copyrighted material, and of 
course they can’t put other people’s works into PD in any legislation.)

But you’re right that a juristically clarified and “waterproof” license like 
CC0 would have been better and more reliable that stating “public domain”. And 
we can’t just apply such a license to all the contents, all contributors and 
original authors would need to agree.

Thus, I share your conclusion.

Maybe we can declare for LSR and for our mailing lists that everyone puts their 
code under CC0 from now on, while older contents are still implicitely and 
unintendedly copyrighted, as long as it’s not declared differently?

Greetlings, Hraban
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
https://www.fiee.net

Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)

[mason]

On 10/29, Urs Liska wrote:
> Well, the LSR website explicitly states that it's contents is in the
> public domain. If I read correctly your email this would have to be
> considered illegal, especially given that many snippets there are
> uploaded not by their original authors but by someone who uses the
> results of a mailing list discussion 

Like Andrew B says, it would probably take an international copyright
lawyer to really sort out the legal status of the LSR.  Saying that
something is public domain doesn't just make it so.  My understanding is
that unless the copyright has expired or the work has otherwise entered
the public domain, all rights are exclusively reserved until the author
gives up those right.  Unless LSR contributors agree to this at some
point during the upload process, they reserve all rights to their code.
Even if contributors are asked to release their work into the "public
domain", that would be legally ambiguous.  The purpose of CC0 is to
resolve this ambiguity.  If the intent is public domain-like status,
contributors should be asked to release their work under CC0.  Even
then, if you are correct that many snippets were uploaded by someone
other than the original author, then the uploaders don't even have the
power to release the code under CC0 without permission from the author.

> Is there anything that should be done about the LSR?

Clarifying the unclear licensing terms retroactively would likely be
such a large task that it is probably not worth attempting unless legal
problems are likely to arise in practice, and since I'm sure that most
snippet authors intended for their code to be free, I doubt that this
will happen.

Moving forward though, it would probably be good to ensure that for
similar projects (such as OLL's snippets) contributions are clearly
under free licenses (ideally GPL-compatible[1] ones, so that the
snippets can be freely combined with Lilypond and/or Frescobaldi).

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

> Am 2019-10-29 um 18:34 schrieb Mike Kilmer :
> 
> I did something along these lines a couple of years ago using something 
> called lytex, which if I recall correctly sort of combines Tex typesetting 
> with Lilypond.
> 
> There’s also something called lilypond-book, but I think that’s more for 
> including small clips of music within text.

Both LyTeX and lilypond-book are based on LaTeX. (Arara is build tool for 
LaTeX.)
I’m quite sure lilypond-book is well suited for songbooks and the like.

Since I’m using ConTeXt (a not as widespread, but more modern variety of TeX 
and the main reason for LuaTeX), I do my songbooks with ConTeXt and a setup for 
its "filter" module (that you can use to call any external program).
See https://wiki.contextgarden.net/LilyPond

My approach to include notes in my TeX documents is similar to LyLuaTeX: There, 
LuaLaTeX calls LilyPond at runtime, while lilypond-book is a preprocessor.

All these approaches finally include notes (snippets, lines or whole pages) 
from LilyPond as images in TeX documents, and you’re free to use all features 
of TeX, e.g. for lyrics, ToCs or bibliography. 
E.g. I’m using the index features to get a table of contents sorted by names 
and/or first line of lyrics.

Greetlings, Hraban
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
https://www.fiee.net

Re: Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond

[Christopher R. Maden]

On 10/29/19 1:14 PM, Solomon Foster wrote:

I've been using Lilypond to render fiddle tunes for nearly a decade
now, and I'm looking at taking the next step -- namely making a
proper, large scale tunebook with it.  While the book I'm working on
right now has hundreds of tunes, it's not mine to redistribute, so
I've put together a quick PDF with some of my own tunes so you can
get the idea what sort of music I'm talking about:
http://www.harmonyware.com/tunes/chunes.pdf


Pretty sure I’ve answered this question on this list before...

For each individual tune, I have one file (tunename_tune.ly) which only 
defines variables, and a wrapper (tunename.ly) which makes a PDF and a 
MIDI using those variables.  Then I have a big wrapper (tunebook.ly) 
which includes all the tunename_tune.ly files and makes a book out of them.


The important part is to have files for each tune that define all the 
info but which don’t actually *do* anything.  That gives you the 
flexibility to do different things with that info in different contexts.


I have a helper file called tunes.ly which handles layout and making a 
MIDI of a dozen instruments playing in unison.


Concretely, below is one tune file, one one-tune layout file, and an 
excerpt from the tune book.


(To make this all more complicated, I actually generate the one-tune 
layout wrapper and the book from a master XML file, but this could all 
be done manually, and I did for a while till the OCD took hold. (-: )


=-=-= kesh_tune.ly =-=-=

\version "2.18.0"
\include "english.ly"
% layout has the printed version with repeats etc.
keshLayout = {
  <<
\chords { ... }
\new Staff <<
   ...
>>
  >>
}
% full chords is unfolded chords
keshFullChords = { ... }
% full tune is the unfolded melody
keshFullTune = { ... }

=-=-= kesh.ly =-=-=

\version "2.18.0"
\include "kesh_tune.ly"
theArranger = "arr. Mallinson, Maden"
theComposer = ##f
theFullChords = \keshFullChords
theFullTune = \keshFullTune
theLayout = \keshLayout
theSubtitle =
\markup {
  \tiny {
\medium {
  \italic {
\center-column {
  "The Castle; Kerrigan’s; The Kesh Mountain; The Kincora; The 
Mountaineer’s March"

}
  }
}
  }
}
theTempo = #(ly:make-moment 420/8)
theTitle = "The Kesh"
\include "tunes.ly"

=-=-= crism_tunes.ly =-=-=

\version "2.16.2"
#(set-default-paper-size "letter")
\paper {
  bottom-margin = 0.5\in
  left-margin = 0.75\in
  line-width = 7.25\in
  print-all-headers = ##t
  right-margin = 0.5\in
  top-margin = 0.5\in
}
\include "kesh_tune.ly"
\book {
  \header {
title = "crism’s tunes"
  }
  \markuplist \table-of-contents
  \bookpart {
\tocItem \markup {
  \bold "Jigs"
}
\header {
  title = "Jigs"
}
\tocItem \markup { \hspace #2 "The Kesh" }
\label #'kesh
\score {
  \keshLayout
  \header {
arranger = "arr. Mallinson, Maden"
subtitle =
\markup {
  \tiny {
\medium {
  \italic {
\center-column {
  "The Castle; Kerrigan’s; The Kesh Mountain; The 
Kincora; The Mountaineer’s March"

}
  }
}
  }
}
title =
\markup {
  \large {
"The Kesh"
  }
}
  }
  \layout {}
}
  }
}

=-=-=-=-=-=

And if you care, some of the relevant XML:



  crism’s tunes
  

  The Kesh
  The Castle
  Kerrigan’s
  The Kesh
Mountain
  The Kincora
  The Mountaineer’s
March
  

  
Dave
Mallinson
  

  
  

  
Chris
Maden
  

  

  


~Chris
--
Chris Maden, text nerd & chanteyman
http://crism.maden.org/ >
http://music.maden.org/ >
“Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me...” — Emma Lazarus

Re: Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond

[Mike Kilmer]

Hi Sol.

Looks great!

I did something along these lines a couple of years ago using something called 
lytex, which if I recall correctly sort of combines Tex typesetting with 
Lilypond.

You can check out the main file (and entire codebase) here: 
https://github.com/MikeiLL/hymnal-Vol-II/blob/master/lilypond/hymnal.lytex 
.

I forget what I was using Arara for, but I think that the way I have it set up 
Arara needs to be configured on your rendering computer to render the tex file 
and then that compiles.

There’s also something called lilypond-book, but I think that’s more for 
including small clips of music within text.

Mike
https://www.CenterOfWow.com







> On Oct 29, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Solomon Foster  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've been using Lilypond to render fiddle tunes for nearly a decade now, and 
> I'm looking at taking the next step -- namely making a proper, large scale 
> tunebook with it.  While the book I'm working on right now has hundreds of 
> tunes, it's not mine to redistribute, so I've put together a quick PDF with 
> some of my own tunes so you can get the idea what sort of music I'm talking 
> about: http://www.harmonyware.com/tunes/chunes.pdf 
> 
> 
> As usual, every time I try to do something new in Lilypond I butt up against 
> the limits of my skills there, and finding what I'm looking for in the 
> manuals or snippets only works about half the time.  As such, I thought I'd 
> try to post the things stumping me at the moment, and hope someone out there 
> has prior art to share or some clever solutions.
> 
> 0) Has anyone out there done something like this before?  All the examples 
> seem to be big classic music or choral works.  I'd love to have a prior 
> example that I could raid for "how to do it" ideas.
> 
> 1) How do I stop Lilypond from breaking a \score (one tune) across pages just 
> to cram more tunes in the same amount of paper?  That is, splitting a \score 
> that requires 2+ pages is fine with me, but I'd rather not start a one-page 
> \score at the bottom of one page and finish it on the top of the next.
> 
> 2) Right now I'm getting the text that goes after a tune by using \markuplist 
> and \wordwrap-lines after the related score is complete.  I'd love to have a 
> way to let Lilypond know that the \markuplist is logically attached to the 
> prior \score.  (If putting it in the actual score is the best approach, I'm 
> fine with that, I just haven't been able to figure out how to do it.)
> 
> 3) I'd also like to be able to add blocks of lyrics after the end of a tune 
> which (again) logically attach to the tune.  Right now I've got a hacky 
> implementation using \markuplist \column-lines \italic and \line which just 
> comes after the \score (like point 2 above), but I'd like to be able to ident 
> the lines a bit (or maybe center them?) as well, and all my attempts to do so 
> have been laughable failures.  (Seriously, why did my attempt to center 
> result in half of each line disappearing!?)
> 
> 4) I saw information on creating a table of contents (though I haven't tried 
> it yet).  I'm having trouble finding anything on creating an index?  Given 
> 200+ short tunes, that's probably much more useful, IMO.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any and all help,
> Sol
> 
> -- 
> Solomon Foster: colo...@gmail.com 
> HarmonyWare, Inc: http://www.harmonyware.com 

Doing A Fiddle Tunebook in Lilypond

[Solomon Foster]

Hi all,

I've been using Lilypond to render fiddle tunes for nearly a decade now,
and I'm looking at taking the next step -- namely making a proper, large
scale tunebook with it.  While the book I'm working on right now has
hundreds of tunes, it's not mine to redistribute, so I've put together a
quick PDF with some of my own tunes so you can get the idea what sort of
music I'm talking about: http://www.harmonyware.com/tunes/chunes.pdf

As usual, every time I try to do something new in Lilypond I butt up
against the limits of my skills there, and finding what I'm looking for in
the manuals or snippets only works about half the time.  As such, I thought
I'd try to post the things stumping me at the moment, and hope someone out
there has prior art to share or some clever solutions.

0) Has anyone out there done something like this before?  All the examples
seem to be big classic music or choral works.  I'd love to have a prior
example that I could raid for "how to do it" ideas.

1) How do I stop Lilypond from breaking a \score (one tune) across pages
just to cram more tunes in the same amount of paper?  That is, splitting a
\score that requires 2+ pages is fine with me, but I'd rather not start a
one-page \score at the bottom of one page and finish it on the top of the
next.

2) Right now I'm getting the text that goes after a tune by using
\markuplist and \wordwrap-lines after the related score is complete.  I'd
love to have a way to let Lilypond know that the \markuplist is logically
attached to the prior \score.  (If putting it in the actual score is the
best approach, I'm fine with that, I just haven't been able to figure out
how to do it.)

3) I'd also like to be able to add blocks of lyrics after the end of a tune
which (again) logically attach to the tune.  Right now I've got a hacky
implementation using \markuplist \column-lines \italic and \line which just
comes after the \score (like point 2 above), but I'd like to be able to
ident the lines a bit (or maybe center them?) as well, and all my attempts
to do so have been laughable failures.  (Seriously, why did my attempt to
center result in half of each line disappearing!?)

4) I saw information on creating a table of contents (though I haven't
tried it yet).  I'm having trouble finding anything on creating an index?
Given 200+ short tunes, that's probably much more useful, IMO.

Thanks in advance for any and all help,
Sol

-- 
Solomon Foster: colo...@gmail.com
HarmonyWare, Inc: http://www.harmonyware.com

Tight spacing in mensural notation (was: Re: Cadenza Senza Tempo Problem)

[Graham King]

"...and most important you want tight space between all notes as
though it's not allowing the space for barlines and more."

This unanswered part of Reggie's question in [1] lead me to re-scratch an old 
itch.  In manuscripts and old printed editions of mensural notation, notes and 
rests are horizontally densely-spaced without regard for their musical 
duration.  I have struggled to reproduce this in lilypond, and the nearest I 
can get is this:

\version "2.19.82"

\new Score \with {
  \omit TimeSignature
  \override SpacingSpanner.spacing-increment = #0.0
  \override SpacingSpanner.packed-spacing = ##t
  \override NoteHead.style = #'petrucci
}

{
  \cadenzaOn c'\longa \breve 1 \breve 1 2 2 1 4 4 1 2
  % \bar "" \break % uncomment to observe effect
  2 8 8 8 8 c''1 b' a' g'
}

It would be good to be able to impose a small amount of horizontal space 
between the noteheads, but I'm at a loss to see how that can be done.  Any 
ideas?

-- Graham

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-10/msg00420.html

Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ; -)]

[David Kastrup]

Dick Seabrook  writes:

> Perhaps we need a "graffiti law" -- that anything written in a public place
> or on
> someone else's property becomes the property of the public, or owner
> respectively.
> Otherwise what right do owners have to clean graffiti off their buildings?

You are confusing ownership of the medium with copyright over the
content.  Cleaning graffiti off a building is exercising control over
the medium in your possession.

Selling postcards of your building prominently featuring the graffiti is
creating copies of the content: that would be problematic since it is
solely the privilege of the copyright holder.

Breaking the wall into pieces of graffiti you sell is "first sale":
lawfully disposing of the medium containing the "legally" acquired
authorized copy (the author chose to put it there, and you did not
commit any illegal act for getting it there I assume, like holding a gun
to their head) in your possession.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: halloween page-number silliness

[Hans Åberg]

> On 29 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Stanton Sanderson  wrote:
> 
> Also runs for me, except the page numbers are not images but an increasing 
> number of boxed
> question marks. (Mac- OS 10.14) - Stan

I tested with MacPorts lilypond-devel on MacOS 10.16. Maybe some font missing.

Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]

[Andrew Bernard]

Yes, ... international copyright lawyer required for even such a simple
thing. In many cases it may be better to put nothing - as the GNU lists do
- and let national law deal with problems and interpretation. Whatever you
put, some jurisdiction somewhere will find it to be in error, and that just
causes headaches. But I really don't think there is an issue with this
list. The topic only arose due to what I consider strange comments about
the GPL licence for software (not music).

Interestingly, Google states:

https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en

Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive
content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you
hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

And then they go on to point out the can make derivative works and do what
they pretty well much like with your content in the next paragraph, exactly
as you say.


Andrew


On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 22:37, N. Andrew Walsh 
wrote:

> though I generally loathe such usage terms, wouldn't some clause in the
> list's ToS to the effect that use of the list grants some nonexclusive but
> unrestricted right to copy/use that material alleviate these concerns?
> Those kinds of clauses are part of every online email service, for example
> (since the servers make multiple copies of your message as the send/store
> it), and most online services.
>

Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]

[Dick Seabrook]

Perhaps we need a "graffiti law" -- that anything written in a public place
or on
someone else's property becomes the property of the public, or owner
respectively.
Otherwise what right do owners have to clean graffiti off their buildings?
Dick S.


On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:06 AM Andrew Bernard 
wrote:

> You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic.
>
> On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to
> support GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous
> list with 100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in
> that project revealed that, surprising to me, it appears to be the legal
> consensus that the poster of the email owns the post and its material in a
> strong sense, and posts are not the property of the list or the list
> owner,. and that duplicating posts for archival purposes can therefore be
> in violation of various parts of copyright and intellectual property law,
> and the whole business is a nightmare. Going against this however is the
> norm that I think most members of mailing lists like my harpsichord  list
> and this lilypond list feel that their posts become 'public domain',
> meaning not subject to copyright, as the intention generally is to share
> and discuss.
>
> I am in Australia, and our copyright/IP law is different to the US, and to
> Europe, so I cant really comment any more. But this appears to be an
> infinitely deep rabbit burrow to explore.
>
> Looking at the spirit of sharing, I feel pretty sure that people who
> contribute to openlilylib, and to LSR, and who post code snippets and
> solutions here on this list intend these works to be shared and used by
> all, despite what the letter of the (internationally varying) law may be.
>
>
> Andrew
>
>

-- 
Dick Seabrook
Anne Arundel Community College
http://vader.aacc.edu/~rhs
Speed the Net!

Re: halloween page-number silliness

[Ben]

On 10/29/2019 8:08 AM, Stanton Sanderson wrote:

Also runs for me, except the page numbers are not images but an increasing 
number of boxed
question marks. (Mac- OS 10.14) - Stan


On Oct 28, 2019, at 9:36 PM, David Nalesnik  wrote:
  
Hans,


On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, 3:21 p.m. Hans Åberg,  wrote:


On 28 Oct 2019, at 16:02, David Nalesnik  wrote:

Hi all,

Hello,


Here's something festive.  The page number is replaced by a equivalent
number of scary Unicode creatures.  (I'm sure it's adaptable for more
serious purposes!)

I get an error:

% lilypond halloween.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.19.83
Processing `halloween.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 5 or 6 pages...
Drawing systems...
Layout output to 
`/var/folders/bs/hm52_h3d5q9c4b8jl_0slxz8gp/T//lilypond-9S7ogk'...
Converting to `halloween.pdf'...
warning: `(gs -q -dSAFER -dDEVICEWIDTHPOINTS=595.28 -dDEVICEHEIGHTPOINTS=841.89 
-dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -r1200 -sDEVICE=pdfwrite 
-dAutoRotatePages=/None -dPrinted=false -sOutputFile=halloween.pdf 
-c.setpdfwrite 
-f/var/folders/bs/hm52_h3d5q9c4b8jl_0slxz8gp/T//lilypond-9S7ogk)' failed 
(256)

fatal error: failed files: “halloween.ly

Runs fine for me.  Problem with the PDF viewer?

David


Loads fine here on my machines, fwiw. Linux and Win. SumatraPDF / Adobe 
/ KDE.


Looks awesome :) Thanks for making this!

Re: halloween page-number silliness

[Stanton Sanderson]

Also runs for me, except the page numbers are not images but an increasing 
number of boxed
question marks. (Mac- OS 10.14) - Stan

> On Oct 28, 2019, at 9:36 PM, David Nalesnik  wrote:
>  
> Hans,
> 
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, 3:21 p.m. Hans Åberg,  wrote:
> 
> > On 28 Oct 2019, at 16:02, David Nalesnik  wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> 
> Hello,
> 
> > Here's something festive.  The page number is replaced by a equivalent
> > number of scary Unicode creatures.  (I'm sure it's adaptable for more
> > serious purposes!)
> 
> I get an error:
> 
> % lilypond halloween.ly 
> GNU LilyPond 2.19.83
> Processing `halloween.ly'
> Parsing...
> Interpreting music...
> Preprocessing graphical objects...
> Finding the ideal number of pages...
> Fitting music on 5 or 6 pages...
> Drawing systems...
> Layout output to 
> `/var/folders/bs/hm52_h3d5q9c4b8jl_0slxz8gp/T//lilypond-9S7ogk'...
> Converting to `halloween.pdf'...
> warning: `(gs -q -dSAFER -dDEVICEWIDTHPOINTS=595.28 
> -dDEVICEHEIGHTPOINTS=841.89 -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -r1200 
> -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -dAutoRotatePages=/None -dPrinted=false 
> -sOutputFile=halloween.pdf -c.setpdfwrite 
> -f/var/folders/bs/hm52_h3d5q9c4b8jl_0slxz8gp/T//lilypond-9S7ogk)' failed 
> (256)
> 
> fatal error: failed files: “halloween.ly
> 
> Runs fine for me.  Problem with the PDF viewer?
> 
> David

Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]

[N. Andrew Walsh]

though I generally loathe such usage terms, wouldn't some clause in the
list's ToS to the effect that use of the list grants some nonexclusive but
unrestricted right to copy/use that material alleviate these concerns?
Those kinds of clauses are part of every online email service, for example
(since the servers make multiple copies of your message as the send/store
it), and most online services.

as usual, ianal, etc etc.

Cheers,

A

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:05 AM Andrew Bernard 
wrote:

> You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic.
>
> On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to
> support GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous
> list with 100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in
> that project revealed that, surprising to me, it appears to be the legal
> consensus that the poster of the email owns the post and its material in a
> strong sense, and posts are not the property of the list or the list
> owner,. and that duplicating posts for archival purposes can therefore be
> in violation of various parts of copyright and intellectual property law,
> and the whole business is a nightmare. Going against this however is the
> norm that I think most members of mailing lists like my harpsichord  list
> and this lilypond list feel that their posts become 'public domain',
> meaning not subject to copyright, as the intention generally is to share
> and discuss.
>
> I am in Australia, and our copyright/IP law is different to the US, and to
> Europe, so I cant really comment any more. But this appears to be an
> infinitely deep rabbit burrow to explore.
>
> Looking at the spirit of sharing, I feel pretty sure that people who
> contribute to openlilylib, and to LSR, and who post code snippets and
> solutions here on this list intend these works to be shared and used by
> all, despite what the letter of the (internationally varying) law may be.
>
>
> Andrew
>
>

Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]

[Andrew Bernard]

You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic.

On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to support
GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous list with
100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in that
project revealed that, surprising to me, it appears to be the legal
consensus that the poster of the email owns the post and its material in a
strong sense, and posts are not the property of the list or the list
owner,. and that duplicating posts for archival purposes can therefore be
in violation of various parts of copyright and intellectual property law,
and the whole business is a nightmare. Going against this however is the
norm that I think most members of mailing lists like my harpsichord  list
and this lilypond list feel that their posts become 'public domain',
meaning not subject to copyright, as the intention generally is to share
and discuss.

I am in Australia, and our copyright/IP law is different to the US, and to
Europe, so I cant really comment any more. But this appears to be an
infinitely deep rabbit burrow to explore.

Looking at the spirit of sharing, I feel pretty sure that people who
contribute to openlilylib, and to LSR, and who post code snippets and
solutions here on this list intend these works to be shared and used by
all, despite what the letter of the (internationally varying) law may be.


Andrew

Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)

[Urs Liska]

Am 29. Oktober 2019 02:57:30 MEZ schrieb ma...@masonhock.com:
>On 10/28, Klaus Blum wrote:
>> AFAIK, the public domain licence also applies to anything published
>on
>> the LY mailing list. I hope that I'm not wrong as I don't intend to
>> "steal" other people's code...
>
>I don't think that list users agree to a CLA or otherwise give anyone
>else the ability to decide how any code they share is licensed, so
>unless the author of a code snippet explicitly releases it under a free
>license, or the snippet is too trivial to be copyrightable, then in
>most
>jurisdictions the code snippet probably is non-free.  Most list users
>probably *intend* for the code they share to be free, so they are
>unlikely to attempt to enforce any copyright restrictions, but in the
>177 countries who signed the Berne Convention they legally reserve all
>rights to the code.
>
>Most LSR snippets are free probably non-free as well.  "Public domain"
>is ambiguous in the context of works whose copyright restrictions have
>not expired (or are not public domain from some other reason, such as
>being published by the US government).  The closest you can get to
>"releasing" your otherwise-copyrighted work into the public domain in
>all jurisdictions is to explicitly apply CC0[1] to your work.  Some LSR
>snippets might include a free license statement, and some are shared by
>the author elsewhere under a free license, but for the rest, the legal
>status will vary by jurisdiction.  Since many contributions are
>anonymous, they could be considered orphan works.[2]  In some countries
>it is legal to use orphan works, but in many they are in limbo: you
>can't use them without permission, but there's no one to get permission
>from.  Like with the list though, I'm sure that most contributors to
>the
>LSR intended for their code to be free and are unlikely to attempt to
>enforce any copyright restrictions.

Well, the LSR website explicitly states that it's contents is in the public 
domain. If I read correctly your email this would have to be considered 
illegal, especially given that many snippets there are uploaded not by their 
original authors but by someone who uses the results of a mailing list 
discussion 

Is there anything that should be done about the LSR?

Urs

>
>[1] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/
>
>[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_work

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.