> On 14 Mar 2019, at 21:16, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> writes: > >>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> Sigh. This discussion stated that they aren't distributing the >>> documentation. Of course distributing the PDF without corresponding >>> source code would not be appropriate, >> >> Please explain. > > I don't see that anything I say makes any sense to you, and vice versa. > The whole point of the GPL is that any generated/compiled stuff has to > be accompanied by its source code.
That is not what the paragraph say, and be provided independently on any of those forms. >>> ...but so far I haven't read anything >>> that doesn't instead suggest that they are distributing the source code >>> of the PDF without distributing the PDF because they have not met the >>> dependencies for building the PDF. >> >> That could possibly be done too. >> >>> Which is the complete opposite. >> >> But including the PDF would be more appropriate. > > It would be more desirable. The GPL does not demand it. As long as you > don't deliver the documentation in compiled form, it's your choice > whether you make the source available or not. Just make it available in any of those forms. >>>> MacPorts admits making an independent binary installer from the >>>> distribution and one can choose what dependencies should be >>>> included, and also its install location. >>> >>> Which has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the topic of >>> including the documentation. Or access to the source code. >> >> Why do you think so? > > What does the install location have to do with including documentation > or access to the source code? The stuff is merged, so you can have different installers if you so like. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
