On a related issue: one thing that's probably clear looking at
Ferneyhough scores is the way in which the vertical placement of hairpin
endpoints is strongly coupled with the vertical placement of dynamic
marks.
I don't think it's really appropriate to bundle all of this together
into one feature
On 2013/03/17 14:37:52, thomasmorley65 wrote:
> This is doable, but I'd wait to see from someone who knows how these
things
work
> if this is actually how they are printed.
> I want to say that they are always printed with the line going up
irrespective
> of the side of the staff, but I could
On 2012/05/31 00:01:55, dak wrote:
That's not the Google tracker issue number, but the Rietveld issue
number.
The Google tracker number would have been 2534 .
Please enter a valid google tracker issue number (or enter nothing to
create a new issue): 2534
WARNING: could not change issue label
I have always been using git-cl but for all patches after the first I
got an error message after entering the google tracker issue number:
---
We were not able to associate this patch with a google tracker issue.
Please enter a valid google tracker issue number (or enter nothing to
create a n
On 2012/05/30 21:16:09, Graham Percival wrote:
The @warning{}
... I'm blind. Give me 2 seconds to fix that.
https://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypo
On 2012/05/30 16:55:17, Graham Percival wrote:
I'm not convinced that the added text will help. How about instead
you change
it to
... done :-)
https://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https:/
Latest patches update as suggested The build section has a link to
4.6.2 and I've slightly tweaked the language of the latter section as
well as mentioning the doc-stage-1 build option.
https://codereview.appspot.com/6206071/
___
lilypond-devel mailin
Reviewers: ,
Message:
As per earlier discussion on devel list, this patch just adds a little
bit of extra info on the make process, noting the documentation build
commands and the possible length of build times.
Basically it's to stop other people getting worried as I did when a
single step of t
On 2012/05/16 12:05:19, Graham Percival wrote:
Don't we have a different place that discusses the doc-related build
stuff?
You're right; it's in Section 4.6.2. It's not necessarily obvious/easy
to find as Section 4.6 is simply titled 'post-compilation options'.
I'll tweak as you suggest, with
On 07/05/2011 11:16 AM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> So, it looks like changes made to .itely files are not being picked up
> as relevant to the build process.
>
> Any suggestions on how to fix this?
Sorry, missed a "Known Issues" note in the contributors' man
Hello all,
I'm preparing a few patches for the notation manual (the section on
contemporary music I started ages back but didn't follow through on
properly), but have encountered a problem.
I've built both Lilypond and the docs successfully, and now I'm editing
the file
Documentation/notation
On 04/29/2011 07:15 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> This might work, but fails to meet the major criterion of the proposed
> branching scheme. The proposal is to make 2.14 stable.
Yes, that's why my proposal was to apply every BUGFIX to 2.14 first, not
every patch. :-)
(Of course, by "bugfix", I mean
On 04/15/2011 07:05 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> Just to be sure I understand correctly, the only things I will cherry-pick
> into stable/2.14 will be bugfixes for critical bugs.
Just as a remark, I wonder if you may find it easier to adopt an
alternative workflow:
-- bugfix gets applied first i
On 09/21/2010 10:33 PM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> On 09/21/2010 08:13 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>>> Does that settle the matter adequately? :-)
>>
>> No, because it's not in the issue tracker.
>
> I'll put it there! Just checking that the source is adequat
On 09/21/2010 08:13 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> Does that settle the matter adequately? :-)
>
> No, because it's not in the issue tracker.
I'll put it there! Just checking that the source is adequate.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@g
On 09/21/2010 05:28 PM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Stone's guidance about the choice of accidentals is IMO something for
> composers to consider rather than Lilypond. From a Lilypond point of
> view, the issue should simply be: the composer can have the accidentals
> s/he
On 09/21/2010 04:52 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> However, I was wrong in my assumption that something about the key signature
> should determine which of the enharmonic equivalents should be used.
> Instead, it appears that the neighboring notes should govern in tonal music.
> In atonal music, it doe
On 09/21/2010 04:42 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> This is not the nuance implied, since by your definition,
> natural-uparrow (+1/4) and sharp-downarrow are the same, and you
> clearly want them to mean something different.
They are enharmonically the same pitch, which can be notated in two
(symbo
On 09/21/2010 02:16 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:
> Yes - accidentals do not affect the degree: they are of degree zero. One
> can add notes and intervals on this abstract level, and the degrees add
> as well. In mathematics, a function f is called a homomorphism (of
> abelian groups) when f(0) = 0, f(x +
On 09/20/2010 05:27 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> For arrowed quarter-tones the notation is described (and recommended) in
>> Kurt Stone's book "Music Notation in the Twentieth Century".
>
> Excellent reference! That book is frequently quoted on this list, so
> this should settle any question of
On 09/20/2010 03:41 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:
> A sharp is M-m and a flat m-M.
If I understand right, this is a key "trick" of your system, since such
representations allow you to raise or lower the pitch without affecting
the degree.
So by extension, if we say that q is a quarter-tone, to raise or l
On 09/20/2010 05:27 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> For arrowed quarter-tones the notation is described (and recommended) in
>> Kurt Stone's book "Music Notation in the Twentieth Century".
>
> Excellent reference! That book is frequently quoted on this list, so
> this should settle any question of
On 09/20/2010 03:22 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> Hmm. This is similar to the distinction between cis and des, correct?
Yes, exactly, it's an enharmonic equivalence.
> Am I also correct in assuming that d-3/4 is not sufficient? Also, is
> there a frequency difference between c+1/4 and cis-1/4 ?
On 09/20/2010 12:23 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:
>> I saw the post but was not sure quite how to interpret it.
>
> I expected someone to ask for details. In the past, I discussed part of
> it with Graham Breed, who did some LilyPond microtonal implementation,
> but perhaps he is not working on it anymore
On 09/20/2010 10:47 AM, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2010, at 00:50, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>
>> Hence why I say that the issue of effective microtonal support still
>> requires action at the code level, and is not simply a matter of better
>> documentation ... :-(
>
Hello all,
This email is an attempt to clarify some outstanding issues regarding
support for microtonal notation in Lilypond. It's being written in
response to recent discussion with Graham Percival on Lilypond Issue
694: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=694
To begin with, let'
Hello all,
A few queries related to my ongoing project to implement customizable
transposition/naturalization styles.
It was suggested to me to use music properties to set the rules. I've
come to the conclusion that this may not be the right approach. Why?
Because as far as I can see music prop
On 07/25/2010 10:14 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> The music property must be set after calling the naturalizeMusic
> function, otherwise it's too late:
Brilliant, that works, thank you! :-)
One small point of clarification -- do I have to put brackets {} around
the music that a \withMusicProperty sta
On 07/25/2010 09:49 PM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> I don't know how that typo got into my email, but it is _not_ what I
> have in my Lilypond input file.
For reference, I've attached a complete .ly file.
naturalizeMusic =
#(define-music-function (parser location m)
(ly:music?)
On 07/25/2010 08:49 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> This function has an arg called `m', but you're trying to access a
> property from `music'. This doesn't cause an `unbound variable' error
> since you have the following identifier (whose music has no
> 'naturalize-style setting):
I don't know how tha
Dear everyone,
A possibly dumb question -- I'm having some difficulty working out how
to set the value of a given music property.
Here's a little piece of Lilypond Scheme adapted from the
naturalizeMusic.ly snippet:
naturalizeMusic =
#(define-music-function (parser location m)
(ly
On 07/10/2010 12:25 PM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> On second thoughts, it seems like transposition constraints for the
> whole of LP could be set by four naturalize-limits: upper and lower
> limits respectively for c, e, f, b; and upper and lower limits for
> everything else.
OK
On 07/10/2010 12:16 PM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> In principle I can also use these to define custom cases for the notes
> c, e, f, b as well; not sure if I should, since the whole point of the
> naturalizeMusic function is to kill things like c-flats and e-sharps,
> and tonal tran
On 07/09/2010 10:34 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> Sounds good to me.
So, here we go ... (faster to achieve than I expected, thanks to a
conversation with a friend who is Scheme-experienced).
I've defined a Scheme function "naturalize-limit" which can be used to
define limits for different cases, and
Neil -- thanks ever so much for the detailed explanations.
> Take a look at lily/music.cc to see where the transposition takes place.
The transpose_mutable() function seems to be where it's at ... :-)
I note the following lines which are surely responsible for cleaning up
anything larger than a
On 07/09/2010 12:09 AM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> That sounds like a useful enhancement, except that it would be a music
> property rather than a context property, since transposition happens
> before translation.
Can you explain more precisely ... ? This seems like something I should
understand very
On 07/08/2010 10:25 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 8 July 2010 19:47, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>
>>(Example: take the music of bb. 9-10 in the sample music, and
>>put it through the _original_ naturalizeMusic function. You get
>>left with a g-dou
Hello all,
As per earlier discussion on the -user list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-u...@gnu.org/msg51183.html
... I finally managed to put some time and mental energy towards
chromatic transposition, in particular, the naturalizeMusic function
from the LSR.
I've attached a draft versio
On 06/23/2010 05:37 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> What did you mean by "customized per platform, that would be part
> of the install" ?
>
> I think I understand what you mean now, however...
Well, to be clear: I mean that when you install Lilypond on Windows, it
should create a menu item (and opti
On 06/23/2010 05:16 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> Given that AFAIK, none of the active developers know where to find
> the source repository for the windows lilypond editor, let alone
> being at all familiar with that code, this is an extremely
> ambitious project.
Hang on. Where did I say people
On 06/22/2010 09:38 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:16:34PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>> I was sure there was some kind of one-page quickstart guide in the
>> documentation, but looking on the development version doc pages at
>> http://kainhofer.c
On 06/21/2010 12:18 AM, I wrote:
> On 06/20/2010 06:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > You can't stop at selling Lilypond to somebody without having an
> > answer to "how do I start this thing"? How many people are complaining
> > that they double-click on the Lilypond icon and nothing happens?
>
>
On 06/21/2010 06:37 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> However, for me personally -- i.e., how I will spend my assistance and
> sponsorship time, money, and effort -- trying to make Lilypond a better
> *composing* tool is a total non-issue, whereas fixing the innumerable
> *engraving* problems remain
On 06/21/2010 01:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> You wish. It is a problem when Lilypond is the best tool for the job
> and/or the cheapest.
'Cheapest' is IMO nowhere near as relevant as many people think,
especially when it relates to organizations like publishers or
universities that have large b
On 06/20/2010 06:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> People want a _solution_ to their problem, not new problems they never
> thought about and which are not actually in their personal problem
> space.
That's true, but it only shows that Lilypond isn't yet capable of
operating as a general-purpose best
On 06/19/2010 07:50 PM, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> Ditto here. I have contacted dozens of French universities, music
> schools, government-funded music structures and whatnot. Everytime I
> got an answer, the answer was: "Fuck off, we already have Finale".
>
> Or something like that.
What were t
On 06/15/2010 09:19 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> One idea I've toyed with is seeking a grant to work on lilypond.
> Various governments and agencies give research grants; I'm pretty
> certain that we could get a grant to improve medieval chant
> notation or contemporary non-Western scales or whatno
Valentin Villenave wrote:
> Indeed. Similarly, WWI is said to have ended in 1921... go figure.
Another amusing tale here. I'm from a part of Wales called
Monmouthshire; but this is border country, and historically there was an
extended period of ambiguity (from about the 1600s to the 20th century
Valentin Villenave wrote:
> US-printed scores where still illegal in France when I was a student
> (that means less than a decade ago). Our teachers had to smuggle these
> when they went on holiday in the US...
1918 + 90 years = 2008, so makes sense ...
> In addition to the death of the author, o
Graham Percival wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:
>> RMS says he thinks it is better using artificial examples, not risking a
>> lawsuit when it is so easy to avoid and still have good results.
>
> 1) I don't care what RMS says.
Though in this case his comment is apt,
Valentin Villenave wrote:
> Certainly not. Even Debussy got banned from our docs, for GNU's sake!
Oh Gawd. Really? Where on earth is he still in copyright?
Even in the US (90 years after death) copyright should have expired by
now, no? Or is the worry that another 10+ year extension will be pu
Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> "The -a is short for --all which includes modified and deleted files,
>> but not newly created files."
>>
>> would be better as:
>>
>> "The -a is short for --all which includes modified and deleted files,
>> but only newly created files which have been added with git add."
>
Mark Polesky wrote:
> Yep. Thanks Joe!
Brilliant. There's probably plenty more that can be added -- see all
the info on the Wine wiki linked to -- but this seems to be the really
_essential_ stuff. Maybe also a link to where to get dos2unix ... ?
__
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> Thanks Joe
>
> Mark is currently redrafting this section of the CG and it seems
> he has picked up and applied your changes in his latest patch.
That's great. Glad it was useful. :-)
Sometime soon I must get back onto the Contemporary Music docs. I'm
sorry for the absen
information.
Best wishes,
-- Joe
From 0b16d7c2d074eeb8f33ed77494bdd26ef9b182db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Wakeling
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:42:04 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Information on sending/receiving git patches via email.
This contains the solution for MIMEtype problems experienced
Graham Percival wrote:
> Please re-read my request. This is not what I asked for.
'As a separate patch, feel free to add the "this manual is under
the FDL" as a comment to the top of any relevant files in
Documentation/.'
I took 'all relevant files' to mean all files in the manual, re-reading
yo
bined form, hope it's OK.
Best wishes,
-- Joe
From 63a650c550357fd2372370db49e0676f1a79420f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Wakeling
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:38:19 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Doc: GFDL licensing notices for all files in LM + NR.
(Plus some trailing whitesp
00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Wakeling
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:47:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] COPYING.DOCUMENTATION tweak to mention (lack of) front/back
cover texts.
---
COPYING.DOCUMENTATION |5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/COPYING.DOCUMEN
Graham Percival wrote:
> What does this mean? I mean, *any* project would be a problem if
> they changed to a non-GPLv2-compatible license. Are they
> considering/planning such a change?
Not that I know of. The point is just that most Lilypond dependencies
are either called rather than linked t
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> For example, we seem to have lost Joseph's really
> promising work to document contemporary music.
Not lost. :-) Actually, the delay came at least in part because I was
looking through problems of functionality related to my docs. I'll post
about this on -user.
Graham Percival wrote:
> I would have thought that
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-09/msg00438.html
> was right up your alley.
Yep. I was having a bit of a look through what's there to see what
would be involved. I'll see what I can do ...
__
Graham Percival wrote:
> For this reason, I categorically refuse to have file-specific
> ownership. Documentation is documentation; any doc committers
> will be listed in the same place.
About docs, I completely agree. I didn't have to spend long in the git
logs to realise that it just wasn't fe
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 13:46:32 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
>> It looks like the problems are FreeType (GPLv2 only or GPL-incompatible
>> permissive license, so blocks upgrade);
>
> The FTL is GPLv2-incompatible, but according to the FSF, it&
license.
Best wishes,
-- Joe
From d1ee19e7d7dd10d0504ebec2a621d675087f0f70 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Wakeling
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:58:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] COPYING rewrite to clarify licensing.
* Text is closer to FSF guidelines and explicitly states that
Lilypond is
Have had a look through the licenses of dependencies as listed in the
Contributor's Guide.
It looks like the problems are FreeType (GPLv2 only or GPL-incompatible
permissive license, so blocks upgrade); Guile (future versions will be
LGPLv3+, so GPLv2-only-incompatible); and potentially Pango (if
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't use
> guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So, lilypond
> then has to switch to GPLv3... But then we have a problem with freetype,
> which
> is FTL (BSD with advertising
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Aarrgghh.
>
> The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
> The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
> whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make the argument that the
> snippet is too small to qualify for cop
Graham Percival wrote:
> There's a *ton* of other janitorial work to be done, especially by
> people who have proven that they're willing to do work (about 50%
> of people who say "hey, I want to help out" never do anything!).
> And not only that, but you're capable of using git! There's lots
> of
Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 04:32:16PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>> I think this is a fairly uncontroversial addition (it's just stating in
>> each file what's already true) so I'm submitting these patches now
>> rather than later.
Graham Percival wrote:
> Bugger the GNU project guidelines. They're not the be-all and
> end-all of good project mangement. In many ways, they're pure
> rubbish. Toodle-pip, cheers, and all that.
>
> (I'm trying to be more British... I was really surprised at the
> use of "cheers" here. It's a
Graham Percival wrote:
> I know you all want to rush ahead on this, but this is one issue
> which will not be rushed. Later today, I have the choice of
> working on GUB and dealing with this thread; I will prioritize GUB
> (and therefore making releases, particularly ones with fixed OSX
> 10.5 for
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I think you don't understand copyright properly ...
>
> DON'T track "whether they support switching the licence". Because if
> they do, they will (presumably already) have switched the licence on
> their contributions.
... but we have no records of that switch, becaus
ived.
The docs are much more difficult to trace than code, with material
having been moved and copied and pasted all over the place. :-( But
when the code parts are finished, I'll see what I can do with them.
Best wishes,
-- Joe
From 848114f18748bb70f199e6d8f6a9c6cc0cdf6a32 Mon Sep
Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Wakeling
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:08:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Doc: add GPLv2+ permission to contemporary music section.
---
Documentation/notation/contemporary.itely | 10 --
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Do
Graham Percival wrote:
> I'll examine this in a day or two; I'm still sorting out basic
> issues about how to live on the other side of the Atlantic.
No rush whatsoever -- I will need time to work on this stuff. Currently
going through Notation Reference source one file at a time and tracking
dow
Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2009/9/11 Francisco Vila :
>> Those stats are very old now.
>
> They are now up to date, just in case.
>
> http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/
Thanks very much for this! :-)
It leads to the question -- already in mind from browsing the git log --
who is 'fred'? Ther
ntify concretely
who contributed what on a file-by-file basis.
Best wishes,
-- Joe
From ac8a3517383a3f5aea9ab9b6c0efb672b620800f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Wakeling
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:58:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Doc: copyright/licensing notice for contemporary music se
Carl Sorensen wrote:
> Amen to that. If only they had made some kind of an accomodation clause
> that would have allowed projects with mixed v2 and v3 licenses to go
> forward, as long as the v3 license terms were followed on the combined
> package (e.g. no tivoization, and following the patent st
Graham Percival wrote:
> The beginnings of the manuals. In my restructuring, that's now in
> macros.itexi, although this may well move to a third macro file.
> Hmm, I just noticed that the copyright years are messed up... I'll
> fix that fairly soon.
Brilliant. So as far as the docs are concerne
Graham Percival wrote:
> Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later. I was thinking about
> unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
> got GUB working.
Great, that should simplify matters A LOT. Where in the source tree is
the explicit statement of the 'or later' ... ?
Graham Percival wrote:
> Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
> happened without me. :(
:-)
> The manuals include the FDL, so I'd argue that it's clear that the
> sources are under the same license. I'd argue the same about the
> source files, actually.
This is basicall
Travis Briggs wrote:
> The source material could be public domain, but the snippet itself is
> a 'derivative work' and is thus under the copyright of whoever made
> it.
What I recall from submitting to LSR was that I was asked to agree that
by submitting this snippet, I was (a) consigning it to th
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Because they are not allowed by copyright law. They cannot change the license
> if the file is only "mostly" their work. They can only change the license if
> the file is SOLELY their work.
Well, technically they can release their bit of the file under their own
licen
Don Armstrong wrote:
> This is now my problem,[1] so I'll attempt to get it addressed at some
> point in the future. [I'd certainly like to see Lilypond at least
> clear up some of the issues so that the above can become correct.]
Hmm, I noted you were listed as the Debian maintainer on Launchpad'
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In GNU projects, the normal thing is that contributors sign a paper
> which is sent in to GNU that they donate the code to GNU.
Nope.
"For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring
copyright to the FSF; that is a separate question. If you transfer
the
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> I think having to sign paperwork (esp. having your employer sign
> something) is something that puts a big barrier up for potential
> contributors. I am not sure it is worth the effort.
I would not want to see users in general having to sign a contributor
agreement or an
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Jan and I know that the current situation wrt copyright headers and
> license notes is not ideal, but we never could bring ourselves to fix
> it, because there always were more important things to do.
> Nevertheless, if someone feels energetic to take this on, they have my
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> ... which I'm sure will NOT hold up in court, so I propose we really end this
> discussion. Please leave the lawyering to the lawyers and lets go back to
> coding.
Please understand the motivation for OPENING this discussion -- not to
debate which license or what lice
Hans Aberg wrote:
> The point is that if you want to be up-to-date with latest GPL in both
> new restrictions and permissions, the only way to do it is to refer to
> the latest version when the source is published. "Or later" will admit
> later restrictions, "or latest" will impose them quietly on
Hans Aberg wrote:
> As long as you use "or later", tivoization and other new restriction in v3 is
> allowed.
No, as long as you use _GPLv2_, whether it's GPLv2 or later or GPLv2 and
only GPLv2, tivoization is possible. 'GPLv3 or later' would not allow
tivoization.
> It is probably simplest to j
Hans Aberg wrote:
> You might check with the GNUers if it is the intention. It means that
> sources can be tivoized, even in the face of the new v3.
It's GPLv2, and not the 'or later', that allows for tivoization -- but
you have to question whether this is a serious risk for Lilypond.
> Linking i
Matthias Kilian wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>> So, having read the past discussion and looked through source code etc.
>> it seems like there are several general observations, some conclusions,
>> and some questions.
>>
&
Hans Aberg wrote:
> I think that the formulation should be "GPL, v2 or latest", because
> otherwise those that want to redistribute the code can choose which
> version, which is not the intent - v3 is in fact more restrictive with
> respect to tivoization. Only one GPL should be applicable. The
> f
So, having read the past discussion and looked through source code etc.
it seems like there are several general observations, some conclusions,
and some questions.
Observations:
(1) Lilypond isn't violating any copyright/license requirements.
There's no LEGAL pressure to switch to GPLv3
John Mandereau wrote:
> Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 12:30 +0200, Joseph Wakeling a écrit :
>> I note that texi2html is only 1.78 on my system (it's the version native
>> to Ubuntu Karmic). Is this going to be a blocker?
>
> If you want HTML output of the docum
I wrote:
> Second: Lilypond is part of the GNU project and GNU programs typically
> have the 'or later' option, and indeed there is a perception that they
> will upgrade to the latest GPL by default.
... see the general information on making a package part of the GNU project:
http://www.gnu.org/he
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 08-09-2009 om 13:16 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Jan
> Nieuwenhuizen:
>
>> Not only out-of-date, but also /wrong/. I just checked our sources,
>> a very early one and the one that was claimed to be packaged
>>
>>git show release/{1.0.1,2.2.2}:{COPYING,ma
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 08-09-2009 om 12:34 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Joseph
> Wakeling:
>
>> The
>> copyright file in my distro (Ubuntu) refers to GPLv2 or later
>
> Which file are you referring to, and what does it say?
/usr/share/doc/lilyp
John Mandereau wrote:
> Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 12:30 +0200, Joseph Wakeling a écrit :
>> [century_schoolbook_l_serif_3.0673828125]Segmentation fault (core
>> dumped)
>> command failed: /home/myusername/code/lily/out/bin/lilypond
>
> What is the snippet that
John Mandereau wrote:
> Even if any program in LilyPond linked with gs, we'd have no problem
> since LilyPond is licensed under GPLv2+ (GPL v2 or later).
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
That was the point of the re-opening of discussion -- my query on that
very point in relation to the new we
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
