Jan-Peter Voigt <jp.vo...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi all, > > probably what I am writing now is not new to most of you. About a year > ago there was a discussion regarding the license of Lilypond, triggered > by Urs' question about the future of OLL. Again and again the > documentation was referred to, which says that Lilypond is a compiler > that translates the source code into a PDF. For God's sake, I don't want > to discuss the licensing consequences again, but I want to point out > that this representation is not exactly complete. In fact, each source > file is translated into a Lilypond internal executable, the execution of > which then generates the PDF.
Uh, no? Calling LilyPond's internal representation of music an "executable" is nonsensical since it does not imply any actions but is a structural representation of music. There never is any linear representation being "executed", and source files are interpreted rather than compiled, with no file-level representation ever being explicit. That's not an academic difference since it is a non-trivial question just what the structure of a MusicXML file is supposed to represent from a given LilyPond input file. -- David Kastrup
