Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. rant I think it's far too easy to make a statement like They can still make money with GPL especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL equivalent to FL. IL has been making FL since I was in high school (time ago). In all that time, no one has managed to make a non-crappy GPL DAW. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that most of the programmers are not artists. The only good audio app I know of that's native for linux is Renoise (and it's not GPL). I just have a hard time dealing with GPL fanaticism, some attitude that seems to believe that anything created under a morally superior guideline must also be a better product or tool (essentially a non-sequitur). While it holds true for most GPL software, tools for audio and graphics are complete rubbish. DAWs and graphic editors are some of the most complicated programs to write, not because they achieve extraordinary results, but because they need to be intuitive to be effective. It's hard to be creative when you spend more time trying to figure out where a tool/option/feature is when you're trying to create art. A lot of GPL tools are quite good, but they lack those few extra features for workflow. Not saying GPL tools won't ever meet the caliber of current commercial products. I love the idea of the GPL, but I'm a little offended to hear people think that FL Studio could continue to hold on to what they've worked so hard for by going open-source. In a perfect world it would be great, but they have to eat, and I think they should eat in light of the amazing tool they've created and continue to support. /rant They can export to .ly format and support LilyPond development with employees or money. That's also good option. From my understanding of the GPL, IL would be free to make use of LilyPond, but if they modified the source in any way, they'd be obligated to provide those modifications to the public, or anyone they distribute the software to. They must also include the software license for lilypond with their distribution. As far as linking, I am less clear on that. I think embedding actual lilypond source code into their app could be a no-no. I don't see why they couldn't call the lilypond program outside the main FL process though. I'm kind of interested in why they need lilypond. If they're hoping to do realtime rendering of scores like some kind of new piano roll, I'd forget about that. If they're making the option to export songs as sheet music, I wonder why. -Johnny 2010/7/21 Alexander Kobeln...@a-kobel.de: On 2010-07-18 14:53, Valentin Villenave wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Canniej...@image-line.com wrote: We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software. Greetings, whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor link to) non-free software. Wait a minute, is this real? MacOS X ships with XCode. XCode ships with the GCC. GCC is mentioned on the no. 1 of Internet encyclopedias as the no. 2 of GPL-licensed software. Does this mean that Apple a) has some weird kind of agreement with the developers of GCC (virtually impossible, since the number is legion)? b) relies that nobody (e.g. Macrohard, the ones with Door OS) will ever care and sue them? c) relies that if they ever get sued they'll either win the fight or just have to pay a few bucks? d) just knows that this is allowed? I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding: d). A plain bundling of a binary does not violate even the GPL. It's not linked (not making function calls or sharing data structures), it's not embedded, it's just shipped with (without modifications, of course) and called. If this is possible, it'd be a real good thing for LilyPond, by the way. Interested (and paid) developers who will have to spent at least a bit of their time to interface and output of a program is always a Good Thing. By the way, reading the other mails: of course it's not an option to hope for FL Studio to be relicensed under the GPL - FL wants to make money with it. It's their business, and it most probably won't work just with support. Cheers, Alexander ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.comwrote: On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. rant I think it's far too easy to make a statement like They can still make money with GPL especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL equivalent to FL. I think you're right when you state this. The best example is Ardour, they can make a living, but it's not easy. There is LMMS btw. IL has been making FL since I was in high school (time ago). In all that time, no one has managed to make a non-crappy GPL DAW. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that most of the programmers are not artists. The only good audio app I know of that's native for linux is Renoise (and it's not GPL). This is not true. You have Ardour and qtractor for instance. If you know how to work with JACK there are things possible for sure. I know people who where using FL Studio and Ableton Live and use now Ardour, Qtractor and Renoise instead on Linux. I just have a hard time dealing with GPL fanaticism, some attitude that seems to believe that anything created under a morally superior guideline must also be a better product or tool (essentially a non-sequitur). While it holds true for most GPL software, tools for audio and graphics are complete rubbish. I do not agree. Ardour, JACK, Qtractor for instance are good tools. The problem is that most people are not able to configure their system properly or refuse to learn how to work with JACK properly. \r ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.com writes: On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. rant I think it's far too easy to make a statement like They can still make money with GPL especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL equivalent to FL. So they are not going to get a free ride on GPLed work ignoring its license. I don't see how this is cause for a rant. After all, nobody says that people should ignore _their_ license. I just have a hard time dealing with GPL fanaticism, some attitude that seems to believe that anything created under a morally superior guideline must also be a better product or tool (essentially a non-sequitur). Sorry, but you are quite wrong. The GPL fanaticism is about simply not using software that does not come with essential freedoms for the user, regardless of its other qualities. That's the Free Software philosophy responsible for creating and maintaining the GPL. In contrast, Open Source philosophy is about all sort of mumbo jumbo claiming superior other qualities as a result of providing free software. While it holds true for most GPL software, That's actually putting the cart before the horse. If you manage to recruit enough (even temporary) fanatics for permanent contributions, you'll get together something. The non-free development courses have the problem that the work does not stay around once the original contributors give up. tools for audio and graphics are complete rubbish. Almost all Free Software started out as the proverbial rubbish in contrast to existing solutions. Actually, all commercial software did so as well. That means that you have to put in more work in order to get a marketable product. With free software, the marketable phase starts when it is interesting to other developers, not to end users. So you see a lot of crap on the free software market, because the end user jury is still out, and their case has not even started. Not saying GPL tools won't ever meet the caliber of current commercial products. I love the idea of the GPL, but I'm a little offended to hear people think that FL Studio could continue to hold on to what they've worked so hard for by going open-source. In a perfect world it would be great, but they have to eat, and I think they should eat in light of the amazing tool they've created and continue to support. You might want to look at the history of Blender URL:http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/. Not everything is as blackwhite as you want to see it. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On 07/22/2010 05:19 AM, rosea grammostola wrote: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.com mailto:hyperfle...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. rant I think it's far too easy to make a statement like They can still make money with GPL especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL equivalent to FL. I think you're right when you state this. The best example is Ardour, they can make a living, but it's not easy. There is LMMS btw. Ardour is not a proper DAW in the modern sense. It doesn't let me (for example) drag a softsynth onto a track and start programming it with midi data. As a multitrack recorder, It works fine. I wouldn't call it a DAW though (at least not in the modern sense of the word). Also, I'll just pretend you didn't say LMMS. Not that I'm ungrateful for their trying, but it's just not FL in any way, shape, or form. Developers need to stop creating low quality clones, and begin their projects with notions of what makes the programs they want to emulate so great in the first place. Again, both being an artist and being a programmer are heavy specializations. I'm not surprised that you don't find many hybrids posessing both skills who want to commit their efforts for little compensation. IL has been making FL since I was in high school (time ago). In all that time, no one has managed to make a non-crappy GPL DAW. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that most of the programmers are not artists. The only good audio app I know of that's native for linux is Renoise (and it's not GPL). This is not true. You have Ardour and qtractor for instance. If you know how to work with JACK there are things possible for sure. I know people who where using FL Studio and Ableton Live and use now Ardour, Qtractor and Renoise instead on Linux. I do know how to use JACK, but it's a bit of a pain to manage configurations. In a program like FL, configuration is saved as part of the project file, as far as I've seen with JACK, the usefulness of multiple programs being linked together is negated by the fact that the configuration has to be managed separately. And one may argue that the same thing is true of FL using rewire, but because FL does almost everything you could need, I find the argument irrelevant. This is in stark contrast with the small, simple, modular philosophy I find in linux audio software. While better in the long run, it has some shortcomings in the present. That is: instead of loading one program and opening a single project file, I have to load up JACK, load up all the programs involved in the project, load all the project files for each program, then finally load the JACK configuration for everything else that's open. If I'm wrong on this point, please let me know. I hope I'm wrong, but if I am, then I think JACK could use some better documentation. If I'm right, then JACK needs some kind of complementary application that has some notion of project workspace. Within such a space various programs would be opened in a given manner and then linked when ready. The closest I came to that was writing a bash script that would open up QSynth, call sleep for a few seconds, then load up jack and connect everything up to my midi keyboard. I don't want to write a bash script every time I start a new project. While I appreciate that functionality, I don't think that's what will make people prefer a system like JACK. I just have a hard time dealing with GPL fanaticism, some attitude that seems to believe that anything created under a morally superior guideline must also be a better product or tool (essentially a non-sequitur). While it holds true for most GPL software, tools for audio and graphics are complete rubbish. I do not agree. Ardour, JACK, Qtractor for instance are good tools. The problem is that most people are not able to configure their system properly or refuse to learn how to work with JACK properly. \r That's a fair argument. I'd actually never heard of QTractor, and I'll be checking it out in the next few days. Looks similar to sonar, and from screenshots I think I see some kind of JACK integration which looks intriguing. I don't like the idea that the faults of JACK are that people aren't willing to learn some kind of specialized rocket science though. JACK on a conceptual level is quite simple, but if it requires more than a day of study to use effectively, it's probably too complicated. I'd argue that it is JACK that needs to learn to work with musicians, not the other way around. Granted, it's fun for fooling around with, but as it lacks a sense of project awareness (as far as I've seen), I've never used it for anything serious (except perhaps sample making via ZynAddSubFX and JACK-Rack)
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On 07/22/2010 05:49 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Johnny Fergusonhyperfle...@gmail.com writes: On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. rant I think it's far too easy to make a statement like They can still make money with GPL especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL equivalent to FL. So they are not going to get a free ride on GPLed work ignoring its license. I don't see how this is cause for a rant. After all, nobody says that people should ignore _their_ license. fair enough. License is a license. Still, would the GPL actually prevent IL from calling a lilypond binary separately? I thought it only disallowed linking, which as far as I understand it applies to things like libraries, or the practice of dropping GPL code into closed-source code. If that extends to piping between processes, I suppose I stand shocked and corrected. I just have a hard time dealing with GPL fanaticism, some attitude that seems to believe that anything created under a morally superior guideline must also be a better product or tool (essentially a non-sequitur). Sorry, but you are quite wrong. The GPL fanaticism is about simply not using software that does not come with essential freedoms for the user, regardless of its other qualities. That's the Free Software philosophy responsible for creating and maintaining the GPL. In contrast, Open Source philosophy is about all sort of mumbo jumbo claiming superior other qualities as a result of providing free software. I stand corrected then. Still, as nice as it is that the GPL ensures user freedoms, it doesn't really offer much for the developers (while there are exceptions, I think this is the status quo) in light of what it takes away from them. While it holds true for most GPL software, That's actually putting the cart before the horse. If you manage to recruit enough (even temporary) fanatics for permanent contributions, you'll get together something. The non-free development courses have the problem that the work does not stay around once the original contributors give up. I can't deny the pitfalls of proprietary development, but I think in the case of FL it's rather clear that it's still going strong, and will likely continue for a long time. It's an extremely accessible program, which is more than I can say for programs that will likely be around forever (if what you say is true). tools for audio and graphics are complete rubbish. Almost all Free Software started out as the proverbial rubbish in contrast to existing solutions. Actually, all commercial software did so as well. That means that you have to put in more work in order to get a marketable product. With free software, the marketable phase starts when it is interesting to other developers, not to end users. That sounds a little backwards, though not surprising. I take it by marketable you mean able to convince people to care? Fair enough, in light of the fact that devs are the only ones who produce anything other than bug reports/feature requests in the open-source world. So you see a lot of crap on the free software market, because the end user jury is still out, and their case has not even started. I think the jury is in, but the developers don't care to listen. While true that as they work for free it cannot be expected of them, I find it perplexing that they would waste their time developing something in such a way that it is less usable than what the community wants. At the same time, this can lead into the issue of there being so many voices that one doesn't know who to listen to and forks endlessly. The solution to that (I believe) comes from the proprietary world. Having an architect who can specify the design of a project/program start to finish. Not in the sense that they close it off to the world, but in the sense that they at least make something useable and coherent before opening it up to the plugin-junkies to fill in for missing base-level functionality. Not saying GPL tools won't ever meet the caliber of current commercial products. I love the idea of the GPL, but I'm a little offended to hear people think that FL Studio could continue to hold on to what they've worked so hard for by going open-source. In a perfect world it would be great, but they have to eat, and I think they should eat in light of the amazing tool they've created and continue to support. You might want to look at the history of Blender URL:http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/. Not everything is as blackwhite as you want to see it. Nor would I ever claim it's black and white. I'm not pro-GPL, nor am I pro closed-source. I believe that software should aim to benefit society as best as it can, and I acknowledge that the GPL aims for that, I simply took issue with the implication that FL could be what it is as a piece of GPL software.
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.comwrote: On 07/22/2010 05:19 AM, rosea grammostola wrote: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.com mailto:hyperfle...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. rant I think it's far too easy to make a statement like They can still make money with GPL especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL equivalent to FL. I think you're right when you state this. The best example is Ardour, they can make a living, but it's not easy. There is LMMS btw. Ardour is not a proper DAW in the modern sense. It doesn't let me (for example) drag a softsynth onto a track and start programming it with midi data. As a multitrack recorder, It works fine. I wouldn't call it a DAW though (at least not in the modern sense of the word). Ardour 2 doesn't have MIDI editing functionality. Ardour 3 has, a beta release should be out soon. Also, I'll just pretend you didn't say LMMS. Not that I'm ungrateful for their trying, but it's just not FL in any way, shape, or form. Developers need to stop creating low quality clones, and begin their projects with notions of what makes the programs they want to emulate so great in the first place. Again, both being an artist and being a programmer are heavy specializations. I'm not surprised that you don't find many hybrids posessing both skills who want to commit their efforts for little compensation. I didn't say I like LMMS, I don't like it, cause it lacks proper JACK support for instance. I prefer Qtractor and Renoise in that scope. I do know how to use JACK, but it's a bit of a pain to manage configurations. In a program like FL, configuration is saved as part of the project file, as far as I've seen with JACK, the usefulness of multiple programs being linked together is negated by the fact that the configuration has to be managed separately. And one may argue that the same thing is true of FL using rewire, but because FL does almost everything you could need, I find the argument irrelevant. This is in stark contrast with the small, simple, modular philosophy I find in linux audio software. While better in the long run, it has some shortcomings in the present. That is: instead of loading one program and opening a single project file, I have to load up JACK, load up all the programs involved in the project, load all the project files for each program, then finally load the JACK configuration for everything else that's open. If I'm wrong on this point, please let me know. I hope I'm wrong, but if I am, then I think JACK could use some better documentation. If I'm right, then JACK needs some kind of complementary application that has some notion of project workspace. Within such a space various programs would be opened in a given manner and then linked when ready. The closest I came to that was writing a bash script that would open up QSynth, call sleep for a few seconds, then load up jack and connect everything up to my midi keyboard. I don't want to write a bash script every time I start a new project. While I appreciate that functionality, I don't think that's what will make people prefer a system like JACK. You're right, all though the JACK and modular infrastructure gives you very many creative and technical possibilities, the main drawback is session management. You can make your bash scripts and there are some other scripting tools made for that, but it is not ideal (for everybody)... BUT there are developments here: check www.ladish.org for instance. There is also Jacksession now, integrated in JACK: http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/WalkThrough/Dev/JackSession http://svn.fuzzle.org/jsweeper/trunk/ That's a fair argument. I'd actually never heard of QTractor, and I'll be checking it out in the next few days. Looks similar to sonar, and from screenshots I think I see some kind of JACK integration which looks intriguing. I don't like the idea that the faults of JACK are that people aren't willing to learn some kind of specialized rocket science though. JACK on a conceptual level is quite simple, but if it requires more than a day of study to use effectively, it's probably too complicated. I'd argue that it is JACK that needs to learn to work with musicians, not the other way around. Granted, it's fun for fooling around with, but as it lacks a sense of project awareness (as far as I've seen), I've never used it for anything serious (except perhaps sample making via ZynAddSubFX and JACK-Rack) I see this from a different perspective. The commercial apps do everything to get and keep customers as much as possible. That means also, make it easy! Maybe FL Studio and all those 'make-a-hit-in-one-day-apps' focus more on commercial goals... Ardour doesn't compromise on this, they
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juli 2010, 22:30:14 schrieb Alexander Kobel: Wait a minute, is this real? MacOS X ships with XCode. XCode ships with the GCC. GCC is mentioned on the no. 1 of Internet encyclopedias as the no. 2 of GPL-licensed software. Does this mean that Apple [...] d) just knows that this is allowed? I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding: d). A plain bundling of a binary does not violate even the GPL. It's not linked (not making function calls or sharing data structures), it's not embedded, it's just shipped with (without modifications, of course) and called. Exactly. That's what the GPL explicitly allows. You can always call a GPL'ed application from a non-GPL application. If this is possible, it'd be a real good thing for LilyPond, by the way. Interested (and paid) developers who will have to spent at least a bit of their time to interface and output of a program is always a Good Thing. Yes, any application can create a temporary lilypond code file, run the external application lilypond on it and get the resulting PDF... That's allowed, AFAICS, as long as it's just an add-on and not the main task of the application (because then one can argue that it again violates the GPL, Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM, rosea grammostola rosea.grammost...@gmail.com wrote: If you think its worth to invest a bit in audio engineering when working with a DAW, Ardour and JACK might not be the tool for you... Typo: I mean of course, if you're from the type 'I-want-to-make-a-hit-in-one-day' Ardour and JACK might be not the tools for you... That doesn't mean you can't make quality recordings with Ardour or that the tools isn't good. It's not by accident that a pro company like Harrison Consoles use Ardour in their products... \r ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On 07/22/2010 06:57 AM, rosea grammostola wrote: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.com mailto:hyperfle...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/22/2010 05:19 AM, rosea grammostola wrote: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.com mailto:hyperfle...@gmail.com mailto:hyperfle...@gmail.com mailto:hyperfle...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. rant I think it's far too easy to make a statement like They can still make money with GPL especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL equivalent to FL. I think you're right when you state this. The best example is Ardour, they can make a living, but it's not easy. There is LMMS btw. Ardour is not a proper DAW in the modern sense. It doesn't let me (for example) drag a softsynth onto a track and start programming it with midi data. As a multitrack recorder, It works fine. I wouldn't call it a DAW though (at least not in the modern sense of the word). Ardour 2 doesn't have MIDI editing functionality. Ardour 3 has, a beta release should be out soon. soon. It's always soon :P. Though I would be interested to see it in action. From what I remember, it's been a long time coming for the MIDI. Also, I'll just pretend you didn't say LMMS. Not that I'm ungrateful for their trying, but it's just not FL in any way, shape, or form. Developers need to stop creating low quality clones, and begin their projects with notions of what makes the programs they want to emulate so great in the first place. Again, both being an artist and being a programmer are heavy specializations. I'm not surprised that you don't find many hybrids posessing both skills who want to commit their efforts for little compensation. I didn't say I like LMMS, I don't like it, cause it lacks proper JACK support for instance. I prefer Qtractor and Renoise in that scope. I do know how to use JACK, but it's a bit of a pain to manage configurations. In a program like FL, configuration is saved as part of the project file, as far as I've seen with JACK, the usefulness of multiple programs being linked together is negated by the fact that the configuration has to be managed separately. And one may argue that the same thing is true of FL using rewire, but because FL does almost everything you could need, I find the argument irrelevant. This is in stark contrast with the small, simple, modular philosophy I find in linux audio software. While better in the long run, it has some shortcomings in the present. That is: instead of loading one program and opening a single project file, I have to load up JACK, load up all the programs involved in the project, load all the project files for each program, then finally load the JACK configuration for everything else that's open. If I'm wrong on this point, please let me know. I hope I'm wrong, but if I am, then I think JACK could use some better documentation. If I'm right, then JACK needs some kind of complementary application that has some notion of project workspace. Within such a space various programs would be opened in a given manner and then linked when ready. The closest I came to that was writing a bash script that would open up QSynth, call sleep for a few seconds, then load up jack and connect everything up to my midi keyboard. I don't want to write a bash script every time I start a new project. While I appreciate that functionality, I don't think that's what will make people prefer a system like JACK. You're right, all though the JACK and modular infrastructure gives you very many creative and technical possibilities, the main drawback is session management. You can make your bash scripts and there are some other scripting tools made for that, but it is not ideal (for everybody)... BUT there are developments here: check www.ladish.org http://www.ladish.org for instance. There is also Jacksession now, integrated in JACK: http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/WalkThrough/Dev/JackSession http://svn.fuzzle.org/jsweeper/trunk/ Thanks for the links, I'll be sure to give them a look when I get some free time. Good to know the problem has been acknowledged. That's a fair argument. I'd actually never heard of QTractor, and I'll be checking it out in the next few days. Looks similar to sonar, and from screenshots I think I see some kind of JACK integration which looks intriguing. I don't like the idea that the faults of JACK are that people aren't willing to learn some kind of specialized rocket science though. JACK on a conceptual level is quite simple, but if it
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.com writes: On 07/22/2010 05:49 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Johnny Fergusonhyperfle...@gmail.com writes: On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. rant I think it's far too easy to make a statement like They can still make money with GPL especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL equivalent to FL. So they are not going to get a free ride on GPLed work ignoring its license. I don't see how this is cause for a rant. After all, nobody says that people should ignore _their_ license. fair enough. License is a license. Still, would the GPL actually prevent IL from calling a lilypond binary separately? Unlikely, as long as the unchanged binary is merely called. In contrast, Open Source philosophy is about all sort of mumbo jumbo claiming superior other qualities as a result of providing free software. I stand corrected then. Still, as nice as it is that the GPL ensures user freedoms, it doesn't really offer much for the developers (while there are exceptions, I think this is the status quo) in light of what it takes away from them. It guarantees them that derivative works will remain available under the same licensing terms. It makes sure that nobody takes _their_ work for a free ride and sells it without contributing back in the same manner. So you see a lot of crap on the free software market, because the end user jury is still out, and their case has not even started. I think the jury is in, but the developers don't care to listen. Why should they? It has no jurisdiction. While true that as they work for free it cannot be expected of them, I find it perplexing that they would waste their time developing something in such a way that it is less usable than what the community wants. Because it is what _they_ want? Why should they bother with a community that does nothing for them except call them names and complain? The solution to that (I believe) comes from the proprietary world. Having an architect who can specify the design of a project/program start to finish. Feel free to develop and design and specify a project/program start to finish. Then recruit your minions. You might want to look at the history of Blender URL:http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/. Not everything is as blackwhite as you want to see it. Nor would I ever claim it's black and white. I'm not pro-GPL, nor am I pro closed-source. I believe that software should aim to benefit society as best as it can, and I acknowledge that the GPL aims for that, I simply took issue with the implication that FL could be what it is as a piece of GPL software. Blender is an edge-case, and while I acknowledge its quality and usefulness as perhaps a sign of potential, I don't believe it's statistically representative of open-source software. So you did not look at the history of Blender after all and missed the point. While I don't deny that OSS will mature, I question its ability to keep up with the curve unless it finds a more effective way to allocate its resources and manage its design. You are aware that Blender did not keep up with the curve until it found a more effective way to allocate its resources and manage its design by _switching_ _from_ _proprietary_ _development_ _to_ _Open_ _Source_? That it offers more benefits in the form of potential is not in question, but that it can offer software on par with commercial applications is in question. Blender was not able to stay on par while being commercial software. Just personally, I see a correlation between quality and development style. As a windows user, I used Fireworks and FL Studio. I've come to linux, and I still haven't found equivalent functionality. Equivalent functionality does not fall magically from the sky, unless you are living in a fairy dream. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On 07/22/2010 07:24 AM, David Kastrup wrote: SNIP: no argument So you see a lot of crap on the free software market, because the end user jury is still out, and their case has not even started. I think the jury is in, but the developers don't care to listen. Why should they? It has no jurisdiction. *deletes 3 paragraphs after realizing the above response nails the point down quite well* If I had known this was the attitude of the community, I would have had second thoughts in joining it. So for now I just continue coding till I manage to figure out the things I don't understand. While true that as they work for free it cannot be expected of them, I find it perplexing that they would waste their time developing something in such a way that it is less usable than what the community wants. Because it is what _they_ want? Why should they bother with a community that does nothing for them except call them names and complain? The solution to that (I believe) comes from the proprietary world. Having an architect who can specify the design of a project/program start to finish. Feel free to develop and design and specify a project/program start to finish. Then recruit your minions. I find the minions are more willing when you've already laid down a codebase. So I'm on it. You might want to look at the history of Blender URL:http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/. Not everything is as blackwhite as you want to see it. Nor would I ever claim it's black and white. I'm not pro-GPL, nor am I pro closed-source. I believe that software should aim to benefit society as best as it can, and I acknowledge that the GPL aims for that, I simply took issue with the implication that FL could be what it is as a piece of GPL software. Blender is an edge-case, and while I acknowledge its quality and usefulness as perhaps a sign of potential, I don't believe it's statistically representative of open-source software. So you did not look at the history of Blender after all and missed the point. I'm wary of large blocks of text. I read it now and am aware of the point you're trying to make. While I don't deny that OSS will mature, I question its ability to keep up with the curve unless it finds a more effective way to allocate its resources and manage its design. You are aware that Blender did not keep up with the curve until it found a more effective way to allocate its resources and manage its design by _switching_ _from_ _proprietary_ _development_ _to_ _Open_ _Source_? I'd say at that point resources becomes a misnomer. After they raised the 100,000 EUR to get it out of the hands of the investors, there were no resources to manage. Work was being done voluntarily, and luckily they ended up with a very capable (and complex) product. While this is a touching story, I don't know if it would apply to everything. Let's say IL GPLs FL. You now have a much harder time making money off the software itself. Software that takes significant time and vision to create. So the users would benefit in the short term by having access to the guts of the machine, but would they benefit in the long term when the architects that made it what it was walk away, no longer able to make a living? A lot of people are quick to cast FL as some kind of toy, but it innovated heavily by making advanced functions quite accessible. It takes 2 things to make a good program: 1. Technical Know-How 2. Design Know-How I see a lot of 1 in current GPL offerings, but not so much of 2. Blender has a decent design, and can get away with its complexity in light of the advanced function it performs, but I don't see why audio editors get away with it. Audio can be intricate, but what the software does is rather straightforward. That it offers more benefits in the form of potential is not in question, but that it can offer software on par with commercial applications is in question. Blender was not able to stay on par while being commercial software. until I see such a thing being the case for more applications, I'll take this with a grain of salt. Just personally, I see a correlation between quality and development style. As a windows user, I used Fireworks and FL Studio. I've come to linux, and I still haven't found equivalent functionality. Equivalent functionality does not fall magically from the sky, unless you are living in a fairy dream. of course not. It is the result of sustained effort. I just find it sad that for all the effort that went into something like GIMP, it's not even nearly as useable (though I guess one can console themselves with all the hideous filter plugins) I think it's clear at this point the combination of our attitudes is in no way fruitful, so I won't try to push things any further. You offer some interesting points to consider, but I'm not convinced that open-sourcing apps is a magic bullet applicable to every situation.
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.com writes: I think it's clear at this point the combination of our attitudes is in no way fruitful, so I won't try to push things any further. You offer some interesting points to consider, but I'm not convinced that open-sourcing apps is a magic bullet applicable to every situation. It is by now quite clear that factual counterexamples will not change your stated absolutes unless _only_ counterexamples remain. It's likely more productive to drill a hole in one's knee and pour in milk than to maintain a discussion on that level. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio
Greetings, An interesting take on an experience similar to Johnny Ferguson's : http://www.linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=12t=2591#p11388 Best, dp ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
They can use LilyPond, no problem. They can export lilypond files AND use lilypond to render this lilypond files automatically AND import this pdf/ps/svg files somehow into their software. I just suggest to them, if they want to use lilypond like that, that they ALSO consider supporting the development with their work (with one employee from their company for example) or with some kind of donation to this wonderful project. And yes, there are lots of succesful companies that work with free software and make money. In he multimedia world it is a little harder. Ardour works with donation and it is working like that. But GPL do not tell anything about charging money. You can sell your software with GPL. And yes, there are many high quality free software for music/audio work: Ardour you (I don't care about MIDI, but can use ardour3 if you want), QTractor, SuperCollider, Frescobaldi+Lilypond, etc 2010/7/22 Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.com:s On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. rant I think it's far too easy to make a statement like They can still make money with GPL especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL equivalent to FL. IL has been making FL since I was in high school (time ago). In all that time, no one has managed to make a non-crappy GPL DAW. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that most of the programmers are not artists. The only good audio app I know of that's native for linux is Renoise (and it's not GPL). I just have a hard time dealing with GPL fanaticism, some attitude that seems to believe that anything created under a morally superior guideline must also be a better product or tool (essentially a non-sequitur). While it holds true for most GPL software, tools for audio and graphics are complete rubbish. DAWs and graphic editors are some of the most complicated programs to write, not because they achieve extraordinary results, but because they need to be intuitive to be effective. It's hard to be creative when you spend more time trying to figure out where a tool/option/feature is when you're trying to create art. A lot of GPL tools are quite good, but they lack those few extra features for workflow. Not saying GPL tools won't ever meet the caliber of current commercial products. I love the idea of the GPL, but I'm a little offended to hear people think that FL Studio could continue to hold on to what they've worked so hard for by going open-source. In a perfect world it would be great, but they have to eat, and I think they should eat in light of the amazing tool they've created and continue to support. /rant They can export to .ly format and support LilyPond development with employees or money. That's also good option. From my understanding of the GPL, IL would be free to make use of LilyPond, but if they modified the source in any way, they'd be obligated to provide those modifications to the public, or anyone they distribute the software to. They must also include the software license for lilypond with their distribution. As far as linking, I am less clear on that. I think embedding actual lilypond source code into their app could be a no-no. I don't see why they couldn't call the lilypond program outside the main FL process though. I'm kind of interested in why they need lilypond. If they're hoping to do realtime rendering of scores like some kind of new piano roll, I'd forget about that. If they're making the option to export songs as sheet music, I wonder why. -Johnny 2010/7/21 Alexander Kobeln...@a-kobel.de: On 2010-07-18 14:53, Valentin Villenave wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Canniej...@image-line.com wrote: We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software. Greetings, whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor link to) non-free software. Wait a minute, is this real? MacOS X ships with XCode. XCode ships with the GCC. GCC is mentioned on the no. 1 of Internet encyclopedias as the no. 2 of GPL-licensed software. Does this mean that Apple a) has some weird kind of agreement with the developers of GCC (virtually impossible, since the number is legion)? b) relies that nobody (e.g. Macrohard, the ones with Door OS) will ever care and sue them? c) relies that if they ever get sued they'll either win the fight or just have to pay a few bucks? d) just knows that this is allowed? I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding: d). A plain bundling of a binary does not violate even the GPL. It's not linked (not making function calls or sharing data structures), it's not embedded, it's just shipped with (without modifications, of
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio
I can somewhat see the analogy, but I dislike this view as it almost assumes that linux audio is somehow impervious to flaws. When it's not flawed though, it's somehow golden. I disagree with his statement that VST doesn't offer much. For effects he could be right, but in terms of VSTi he's quite wrong. (and on that, I question how much he understands VST). Until we get LV2, we'll be forced to rely on WINE hacks, or to scramble through source code intended for windows hosts. In the end, I don't see VST as relevant any more, and it's a waste of effort to get it working on linux. The standard was only ever intended for effects, and the implementation of instruments is a mess. I only defend VST in any capacity because it works extremely well on the platforms it was intended for, regardless for my feelings towards its implementation. Until LV2 comes around, it's the best available. (Though JACK-Rack has some pretty good effects as well, I love the saturator effects, and arctan distortion is pure bliss) I also don't share his situation as I'm rather familiar with computers. I've been using them for a little over 16 years now, have done programming, have studied computer science at the university level (which was loaded with a little too much theory for my liking). I know how computers work. I've written working code in languages from Assembly to Scheme. Despite that, I don't think any level of technical brilliance can save programs from bad design (this is from a usability perspective). A trait my other technical friends find me kind of odd for, but I'm a big picture kind of guy. I don't feel so strongly for linux audio that I lose any sleep over it. I paid 75 EUR for a copy of renoise, and it's been sitting on my hard drive unused. I associate more with the artist personality, so I don't feel compelled to write code every time I feel like being expressive. Nor do I feel like reading through 20 pages of documentation that is unmaintained to see how I can cobble things together that through historical precedent, could be achieved in easier ways. I think when linux audio becomes usable, I'll hear about it. For what it's worth, it will stomp that crap out of windows and mac. I have yet to give qTractor a try, so I may revise earlier opinions, but if my experience has shown anything, it's that the screenshots usually look quite impressive, but you load the program and it runs for about 2 minutes before the sound cuts out for some unimaginable reason, or you can't find the function you need. When you use a tool, you should focus on the task said tool performs, not the tool itself. The tool should be transparent. If I had to consider the workings and parameters of the guitar each moment I played it, the thing would never make a sound. This of course is my own view of creativity and how linux offerings bear on that process. People are welcome to their rosy opinions, but I'm getting to the point where I'd rather work with analog modulars and a tape deck than try to coax something expressive out of linux audio. Not sure how relevant this discussion is to the LP mailing list though. I have to praise LP as the one piece of music-related OSS that isn't a piece of junk, and manages to be flexible while still usable. The documentation is also quite comprehensive, and the snippets database is a terse and effective goldmine. -Johnny On 07/22/2010 09:20 AM, Dave Phillips wrote: Greetings, An interesting take on an experience similar to Johnny Ferguson's : http://www.linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=12t=2591#p11388 Best, dp ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio
If you are very focused on VST plugins and want an easy way to have everything, check this distro/respo. Comes with ArdourVST 32 and 64bit and tons of plugins: http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/ 2010/7/22 Johnny Ferguson hyperfle...@gmail.com I can somewhat see the analogy, but I dislike this view as it almost assumes that linux audio is somehow impervious to flaws. When it's not flawed though, it's somehow golden. I disagree with his statement that VST doesn't offer much. For effects he could be right, but in terms of VSTi he's quite wrong. (and on that, I question how much he understands VST). Until we get LV2, we'll be forced to rely on WINE hacks, or to scramble through source code intended for windows hosts. In the end, I don't see VST as relevant any more, and it's a waste of effort to get it working on linux. The standard was only ever intended for effects, and the implementation of instruments is a mess. I only defend VST in any capacity because it works extremely well on the platforms it was intended for, regardless for my feelings towards its implementation. Until LV2 comes around, it's the best available. (Though JACK-Rack has some pretty good effects as well, I love the saturator effects, and arctan distortion is pure bliss) I also don't share his situation as I'm rather familiar with computers. I've been using them for a little over 16 years now, have done programming, have studied computer science at the university level (which was loaded with a little too much theory for my liking). I know how computers work. I've written working code in languages from Assembly to Scheme. Despite that, I don't think any level of technical brilliance can save programs from bad design (this is from a usability perspective). A trait my other technical friends find me kind of odd for, but I'm a big picture kind of guy. I don't feel so strongly for linux audio that I lose any sleep over it. I paid 75 EUR for a copy of renoise, and it's been sitting on my hard drive unused. I associate more with the artist personality, so I don't feel compelled to write code every time I feel like being expressive. Nor do I feel like reading through 20 pages of documentation that is unmaintained to see how I can cobble things together that through historical precedent, could be achieved in easier ways. I think when linux audio becomes usable, I'll hear about it. For what it's worth, it will stomp that crap out of windows and mac. I have yet to give qTractor a try, so I may revise earlier opinions, but if my experience has shown anything, it's that the screenshots usually look quite impressive, but you load the program and it runs for about 2 minutes before the sound cuts out for some unimaginable reason, or you can't find the function you need. When you use a tool, you should focus on the task said tool performs, not the tool itself. The tool should be transparent. If I had to consider the workings and parameters of the guitar each moment I played it, the thing would never make a sound. This of course is my own view of creativity and how linux offerings bear on that process. People are welcome to their rosy opinions, but I'm getting to the point where I'd rather work with analog modulars and a tape deck than try to coax something expressive out of linux audio. Not sure how relevant this discussion is to the LP mailing list though. I have to praise LP as the one piece of music-related OSS that isn't a piece of junk, and manages to be flexible while still usable. The documentation is also quite comprehensive, and the snippets database is a terse and effective goldmine. -Johnny On 07/22/2010 09:20 AM, Dave Phillips wrote: Greetings, An interesting take on an experience similar to Johnny Ferguson's : http://www.linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=12t=2591#p11388 Best, dp ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Valentin Villenave valen...@villenave.netwrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Cannie j...@image-line.com wrote: We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software. Greetings, whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor link to) non-free software. It would be possible to use Lilypond in FL Studio, when Lilypond was released with a LGPL license right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL Is it now (with GPL) possible to have a Lilypond export function in FL Studio? \r ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bernardo Barros bernardobarr...@gmail.comwrote: Or if Stutio FLX changes its license to GNU/GPL. 2010/7/21 rosea grammostola rosea.grammost...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Valentin Villenave valen...@villenave.net wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Cannie j...@image-line.com wrote: We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software. Greetings, whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor link to) non-free software. It would be possible to use Lilypond in FL Studio, when Lilypond was released with a LGPL license right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL Is it now (with GPL) possible to have a Lilypond export function in FL Studio? \r On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bernardo Barros bernardobarr...@gmail.com wrote: Or if Stutio FLX changes its license to GNU/GPL. Hmm right... Some kind of win-win situation would be not so bad... maybe. They use lilypond and optimize the MIDI functionality and pop-music scores and give those code changes back to Lilypond (this is also needed with a LGPL license?). Firefox and OpenOffice and JACK seems to use the LGPL license. \r ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
Or if Stutio FLX changes its license to GNU/GPL. 2010/7/21 rosea grammostola rosea.grammost...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Valentin Villenave valen...@villenave.net wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Cannie j...@image-line.com wrote: We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software. Greetings, whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor link to) non-free software. It would be possible to use Lilypond in FL Studio, when Lilypond was released with a LGPL license right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL Is it now (with GPL) possible to have a Lilypond export function in FL Studio? \r ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On 2010-07-18 14:53, Valentin Villenave wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Canniej...@image-line.com wrote: We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software. Greetings, whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor link to) non-free software. Wait a minute, is this real? MacOS X ships with XCode. XCode ships with the GCC. GCC is mentioned on the no. 1 of Internet encyclopedias as the no. 2 of GPL-licensed software. Does this mean that Apple a) has some weird kind of agreement with the developers of GCC (virtually impossible, since the number is legion)? b) relies that nobody (e.g. Macrohard, the ones with Door OS) will ever care and sue them? c) relies that if they ever get sued they'll either win the fight or just have to pay a few bucks? d) just knows that this is allowed? I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding: d). A plain bundling of a binary does not violate even the GPL. It's not linked (not making function calls or sharing data structures), it's not embedded, it's just shipped with (without modifications, of course) and called. If this is possible, it'd be a real good thing for LilyPond, by the way. Interested (and paid) developers who will have to spent at least a bit of their time to interface and output of a program is always a Good Thing. By the way, reading the other mails: of course it's not an option to hope for FL Studio to be relicensed under the GPL - FL wants to make money with it. It's their business, and it most probably won't work just with support. Cheers, Alexander ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. They can export to .ly format and support LilyPond development with employees or money. That's also good option. 2010/7/21 Alexander Kobel n...@a-kobel.de: On 2010-07-18 14:53, Valentin Villenave wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Canniej...@image-line.com wrote: We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software. Greetings, whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor link to) non-free software. Wait a minute, is this real? MacOS X ships with XCode. XCode ships with the GCC. GCC is mentioned on the no. 1 of Internet encyclopedias as the no. 2 of GPL-licensed software. Does this mean that Apple a) has some weird kind of agreement with the developers of GCC (virtually impossible, since the number is legion)? b) relies that nobody (e.g. Macrohard, the ones with Door OS) will ever care and sue them? c) relies that if they ever get sued they'll either win the fight or just have to pay a few bucks? d) just knows that this is allowed? I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding: d). A plain bundling of a binary does not violate even the GPL. It's not linked (not making function calls or sharing data structures), it's not embedded, it's just shipped with (without modifications, of course) and called. If this is possible, it'd be a real good thing for LilyPond, by the way. Interested (and paid) developers who will have to spent at least a bit of their time to interface and output of a program is always a Good Thing. By the way, reading the other mails: of course it's not an option to hope for FL Studio to be relicensed under the GPL - FL wants to make money with it. It's their business, and it most probably won't work just with support. Cheers, Alexander ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor link to) non-free software. You could always do what MuseScore does ... and include a Save As Lilypond format. I dont think there is a restriction on creating text files in Lilypond format, but then you would have to tell users of FL studio where to download Lilypond. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Cannie j...@image-line.com wrote: We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software. Greetings, whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor link to) non-free software. This also raises the question of the interchange format between FL and Lily: are you implying you would be ready to implement a native .ly or MusicXML export within FL, or (more likely) use FL's midi output to print sheet music? If so, there would definitely be quite some room for improvement in Lily's MIDI input since a) the MIDI format is a very limited one, and b) our own midi2ly filter is hardly as reliable as, say, our musicxml2ly filter. By the way: if you wish to pursue this discussion in French, you might be interested in subscribing to our French-speaking mailing list: http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user-fr Cheers, V. Villenave (French LilyPond community manager) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Lilypond for FL Studio ...
Hi, We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software. If you are interested in a cooperation here please drop me a mail on j...@image-line.com Regards, Jean-Marie Cannie Image-Line Software Kortrijksesteenweg 281 9830 Sint-Martens-Latem Belgium Tel : +32 9 281 15 33 Fax : +32 9 281 15 01 Email : j...@image-line.com Web : www.image-line.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
