Urs Liska <li...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 29. Oktober 2019 00:04:06 MEZ schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >>Andrew Bernard <andrew.bern...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I am finding this thread weird, sorry. There's a huge amount of help >>in the >>> archives of this list in how to install and run openlilylib. A quick >>search >>> would show that. It's a sort of FAQ. >>> >>> Also, lilypond is GPL, so does the following mean you are therefore >>not >>> able to even use the program Karsten? >>> >>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 06:20, Karsten Reincke <k.rein...@fodina.de> >>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> a) It is licensed under GPL. I think this is not appropriate for >>music. >>>> In a few days I will write a little article about this topic. But >>>> without changing that license I cannot contribute to it. >>>> >>>> I fail to understand this. How can an open source licence not be >>>> appropriate for music? >> >>Do you really want to force everybody giving sheet music to somebody >>else to accompany it with a written offer to the LilyPond source code? >>Or otherwise be prohibited from distribution? >> >>That's not really practical for most choir directors. > > This starts to get out of hands. The issue is of course not licensing > music under the GPL. But that for some reason GPL is said to be > unsuitable for a music-related *tool* like openLilyLib.
Sorry, I thought this was about sheet music source code. -- David Kastrup
