Am So., 4. Nov. 2018 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb David Nalesnik <[email protected]>: > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:24 PM David Nalesnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:23 PM Andrew Bernard <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > Isn't Lilypond open source? Cant you make your code open source? I am not > > > following your idea. > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> And, no :( I removed it from GitHub, because I simply do not > > >> understand how I would license such a thing, give proper > > >> acknowledgement to LilyPond. It quotes code from LilyPond internals, > > >> and before I put something up on GitHub I would need to make sure I'm > > >> not violating the terms of LilyPond's license. > > >> > > Oops, sorry about the empty response. > > Sure, yes, I just want to make sure that I release it under the right > license (I suppose it must be GPLed) and include whatever I must > relative to LilyPond coverage by the GPL . I just jumped the gun, > that's all. > > David
Hi David, is it really an issue I have to think about licenses as soon as I use some lily-internals? For example, whenever I propose a callback with some condition using 'ly:grob-set-property!' and the like... In a worst scenario that would drop any user support other than: "RTFM" (or more polite: it's in the docs, look "here".) Or "It's not in the docs, please file a bug report." Or "You could do like below [...]. Please accept my licence: <what-ever-license>" Really? Best, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
