Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> writes: >> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:12, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >> >>>>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily >>>>> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even >>>>> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense. >>>> >>>> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration >>>> one has to make explicit 'make pdf' and 'make install-pdf'. It >>>> would be nice to have it, so one does not have to go to the site and >>>> download it by hand. With MacPorts, one would get it all >>>> automatically when updating the packages. >>> >>> Well, building the documentation is not trivial. It is certainly >>> doable within MacPorts; however, the Portfile isn't set up for that, >>> and I guess it would add a lot of additional dependencies. >> >> Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing >> but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for >> everything you distribute. > > I think it suffices to have it provided, not necessarily in a specific > main distribution. These days, Internet should suffice.
It doesn't matter what you think when the conditions are spelled out clearly in the GPL. > MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and the > binary installer, so the latter can have just the docs without the > stuff required to build it. Unless I am mistaken we are talking about the documentation being completely absent. Which is legitimate but unfortunate. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
