Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960069/scm/ps-to-png.scm File scm/ps-to-png.scm (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960069/scm/ps-to-png.scm#newcode184 scm/ps-to-png.scm:184: (if (not (= 1 anti-alias-factor)) please submit this as is, but for a follow-up, i

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 5/6/20, jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com wrote: > In case you're interested how I found out about this: > https://www.hahnjo.de/blog/2020/05/06/recursively-timeing-processes.html Good to know, thanks! (And the resulting improvement is indeed impressive.) Cheers, -- V.

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

In case you're interested how I found out about this: https://www.hahnjo.de/blog/2020/05/06/recursively-timeing-processes.html before this change (commit 8fa5191cbf) /usr/bin/gsc called 18100 times, total of 2044s lilypond called 937 times, total of 1120s after an early version of this change: /u

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/03 10:46:49, hahnjo wrote: > On 2020/05/03 10:40:25, dak wrote: > > On 2020/05/03 09:46:56, hahnjo wrote: > > > rebase + allow -dgs-api=#f to still fork > > > > I decided to look up the terms of the Affero GPL version 3. The relevant > > differences are: > > [...] > > I think you're n

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/03 10:40:25, dak wrote: > On 2020/05/03 09:46:56, hahnjo wrote: > > rebase + allow -dgs-api=#f to still fork > > I decided to look up the terms of the Affero GPL version 3. The relevant > differences are: > [...] I think you're not looking at the right direction, ie we're not integrat

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/02 10:22:15, hahnjo wrote: > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960055/lily/general-scheme.cc > File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960055/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode778 > lily/general-scheme.cc:778: free (a); > On 2

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/03 09:46:56, hahnjo wrote: > rebase + allow -dgs-api=#f to still fork I decided to look up the terms of the Affero GPL version 3. The relevant differences are: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offe

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

LGTM https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/548050047/lily/general-scheme.cc File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/548050047/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode777 lily/general-scheme.cc:777: for (char *a : passed_args) I'll try to clean this up a b

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/548050047/lily/main.cc File lily/main.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/548050047/lily/main.cc#newcode345 lily/main.cc:345: printf ("%s", (_ ("linked against Ghostscript:").c_str ())); excellent, thanks for bearing with us. h

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/02 10:48:20, hahnjo wrote: > add license information $ lilypond -w GNU LilyPond 2.21.2 Copyright (c) 1996--2020 by Han-Wen Nienhuys Jan Nieuwenhuizen and others. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Publ

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960055/lily/general-scheme.cc File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960055/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode778 lily/general-scheme.cc:778: free (a); On 2020/05/02 10:15:40, hanwenn wrote: > the code mi

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/02 10:12:45, hanwenn wrote: > On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 12:09 PM wrote: > > > > This version of LilyPond has been compiled and linked with a version > > > of Ghostscript licensed under the AGPL. > > > > Please re-read point 2 above. Old Ghostscript version

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960055/lily/general-scheme.cc File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960055/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode778 lily/general-scheme.cc:778: free (a); the code mixes setting up the GS instance (memory ma

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 12:09 PM wrote: > > This version of LilyPond has been compiled and linked with a version > > of Ghostscript licensed under the AGPL. > > Please re-read point 2 above. Old Ghostscript versions are not AGPL and > other implementations may not be either. it's easy to discover

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/02 10:04:14, dak wrote: > On 2020/05/02 09:49:44, hahnjo wrote: > > On 2020/05/01 06:28:56, hanwenn wrote: > > > I suggest we make this an option that you have enable explicitly. > > > > done > > > > > If it is enabled, we'd have to change the --license output to say AGPL as > > well.

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/02 09:49:44, hahnjo wrote: > On 2020/05/01 06:28:56, hanwenn wrote: > > I suggest we make this an option that you have enable explicitly. > > done > > > If it is enabled, we'd have to change the --license output to say AGPL as > well. > > I thought about this and decided against it: >

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 06:28:56, hanwenn wrote: > I suggest we make this an option that you have enable explicitly. done > If it is enabled, we'd have to change the --license output to say AGPL as well. I thought about this and decided against it: 1. LilyPond stays under GPL, even if the whole may be AGP

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 22:19:38, hanwenn wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:58 PM wrote: > > > > On 2020/05/01 12:12:40, dak wrote: > > > That being said, the situation regarding Scorio, a proprietary entity > > using Free > > > Software as a component of delivering a web-base

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:58 PM wrote: > > On 2020/05/01 12:12:40, dak wrote: > > That being said, the situation regarding Scorio, a proprietary entity > using Free > > Software as a component of delivering a web-based service with > non-disclosed > > components, is _exactly_ the reason Artifex ch

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 12:12:40, dak wrote: > That being said, the situation regarding Scorio, a proprietary entity using Free > Software as a component of delivering a web-based service with non-disclosed > components, is _exactly_ the reason Artifex chose the AGPL as a basis for their > business model sel

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 11:44:05, hahnjo wrote: > On 2020/05/01 11:41:13, dak wrote: > > On 2020/05/01 11:18:11, hahnjo wrote: > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc > > > File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): > > > > > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/54

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 11:41:13, dak wrote: > On 2020/05/01 11:18:11, hahnjo wrote: > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc > > File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode783

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 11:18:11, hahnjo wrote: > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc > File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode783 > lily/general-scheme.cc:783: command += "(" +

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 11:31:23, hanwenn wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 1:18 PM wrote: > > > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc > > File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/d

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 1:18 PM wrote: > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc > File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode783 > lily/general-scheme.cc:783: command += "

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode783 lily/general-scheme.cc:783: command += "(" + ly_scm2string (input) + ") run"; On 2020/05/0

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 07:58:32, hahnjo wrote: > disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is just my understanding of the licenses. > > On 2020/05/01 06:28:56, hanwenn wrote: > > Technologically speaking, this is a brilliant idea, and I am all in favor it. > > > > However, I think we can't enable this by defaul

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 09:49:35, hanwenn wrote: > LilyPond can also output postscript with embedded fonts, which you should be > able to send to a Postscript printer (I have a PS printer too, but it's a 2001 > model, which probably is too old to deal with OTF/CFF fonts). In this scenario, > you don't need G

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/05/01 07:58:32, hahnjo wrote: > disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is just my understanding of the licenses. > > On 2020/05/01 06:28:56, hanwenn wrote: > > Technologically speaking, this is a brilliant idea, and I am all in favor it. > > > > However, I think we can't enable this by defaul

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is just my understanding of the licenses. On 2020/05/01 06:28:56, hanwenn wrote: > Technologically speaking, this is a brilliant idea, and I am all in favor it. > > However, I think we can't enable this by default. > > Ghostscript is licensed under AGPL, and li

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode783 lily/general-scheme.cc:783: command += "(" + ly_scm2string (input) + ") run"; This doesn't

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

Technologically speaking, this is a brilliant idea, and I am all in favor it. However, I think we can't enable this by default. Ghostscript is licensed under AGPL, and linking it in makes LilyPond a derived work, putting it under AGPL as well. That would be effectively a license change of LilyPon

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

LGTM, thanks! Looks very good, indeed. https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/

Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/04/30 19:15:23, hahnjo wrote: > This probably goes without saying, but touching such core functionality should > receive very rigid testing. I hope I got most things covered, but especially > manual feedback would be very much appreciated! Sounds pretty good. A great long-term perspective

Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

Reviewers: , Message: This probably goes without saying, but touching such core functionality should receive very rigid testing. I hope I got most things covered, but especially manual feedback would be very much appreciated! Description: Use GhostScript API instead of forking This is much more