On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:05:35AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later. I was thinking about
> > unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
> > got GUB working.
>
> Great, that should simplify matters A LOT. Wher
On 2009-09-09, at 08:59 , Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Dan, Neil, et al.:
Does the following help?
SoloVoice is a kind of Voice. UpperVoice and LowerVoice are kinds
of SoloVoice.
That's [relatively] self-evident. What isn't crystal clear — either
in my mind, or (IMO) in the documentation
2009/9/11 Francisco Vila :
> Those stats are very old now.
They are now up to date, just in case.
http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/
A pity that the .mailmap file is of no effect here.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org
www.csmbadajoz.com
_
I came up with a .mailmap file for our project that might be of help
on identifying unique contributors from git log even if they have
multiple email addresses. I think it is not appropriate to show it
pubic[ahem] publicly; I'll send you it if you want.
Main contributors are graphically visible
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> wrapper code under v2/v3 to expose the pubic interface or whatever
> it is that people who do this kind of stuff do. I don't have that
> kind of a hobby. :)
What's that for a hobby? "Exposing the pubic interface"? Sounds a bit
hairy to
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:36:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
> > are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
> > input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free
Graham Percival wrote:
> Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later. I was thinking about
> unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
> got GUB working.
Great, that should simplify matters A LOT. Where in the source tree is
the explicit statement of the 'or later' ... ?
Graham Percival wrote:
> Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
> happened without me. :(
:-)
> The manuals include the FDL, so I'd argue that it's clear that the
> sources are under the same license. I'd argue the same about the
> source files, actually.
This is basicall
On 9/10/09 4:47 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:37:46PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>>>
>>> 3) If we can't find some people, or if they don'
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:37:46PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> >
> > 3) If we can't find some people, or if they don't agree to
> > whatever relicense/assignment, then we e
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
> Kainhofer writes
>> ... So we'll have the same problem again in some years... By then it will be
>> even harder tracking down all contributors, who submitted
On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
> happened without me. :(
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>
> 3) If we can't find some people, or if they don't agree to
> whatever relicense/
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
> Kainhofer writes
>> ... So we'll have the same problem again in some years... By then it will be
>> even harder tracking down all contributors, who submitted
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
> happened without me. :(
The reason that I am against changing anything beyond making existing
terms clearer is that it generates a huge amount of legal
hypothesizing by non-la
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:10:53PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
> > are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
> > input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it cannot
> > be modified.[2])
On 9/10/09 3:10 PM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
> Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 19:53 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
>> The most important two factors, in my mind, are "how interested
>> are you?" (very interested), and "will you have enough time to
>> finish it?". I'm not so concerned about usi
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:36:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
> are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
> input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it cannot
> be modified.[2])
I'm not
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:36:08AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > I think having to sign paperwork (esp. having your employer sign
> > something) is something that puts a big barrier up for potential
> > contributors. I am not sure it is worth the effort.
>
> I would
In message <200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
Kainhofer writes
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 17:12:42 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
In message <4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
>Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
happened without me. :(
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>(3) Individual code files contain copyright notices but not licensing
>notices. It's not clear if these notices have been maintained
Hi Graham,
Thanks for the info!
Kieren.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:02:41AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> 1. Has the 'Pond made a final decision on the "standard" file extension
> for non-compilable (i.e., "include" only) Lilypond files?
Since we haven't started the "standarding" project, no. That
said, I can't imagine why we wouldn
Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 19:53 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> The most important two factors, in my mind, are "how interested
> are you?" (very interested), and "will you have enough time to
> finish it?". I'm not so concerned about using waf for everything,
> but do you think you can get
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond
> > which are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things
> > like input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it
> > cannot be modified.[2
Travis Briggs wrote:
> The source material could be public domain, but the snippet itself is
> a 'derivative work' and is thus under the copyright of whoever made
> it.
What I recall from submitting to LSR was that I was asked to agree that
by submitting this snippet, I was (a) consigning it to th
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Because they are not allowed by copyright law. They cannot change the license
> if the file is only "mostly" their work. They can only change the license if
> the file is SOLELY their work.
Well, technically they can release their bit of the file under their own
licen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 17:12:42 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> In message <4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
> writes
>
> >Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
> >to follow these rules:
> >
>
In message <4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
to follow these rules:
-- for code, GPLv2 or later or a more liberal compatible license;
NO NO NO.
Some people are likely to be unhappy with "or later"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 16:21:34 schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
> Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 15:28 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Valentin
>
> Villenave:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
> >
> > wrote:
> > > What would be good
Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 15:28 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Valentin
Villenave:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
> wrote:
> > What would be good is if as many contributors as possible can reply to
> > this email just to OK (i) my putting copyright/licensing notices in the
> >
The source material could be public domain, but the snippet itself is
a 'derivative work' and is thus under the copyright of whoever made
it.
-Travis
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Valentin Villenave
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
> wrote:
>> What I propose is that
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
wrote:
> What I propose is that I maintain a separate branch of the code (but
> keep pulling/rebasing against the Lilypond master) to insert appropriate
> copyright and licensing notices. git blame should help to give a better
> idea of who has con
Anyways, as a contributor (!), I definitely support "or later" because
it allows for things like the Wikipedia re-licensing. It would have
been quite a mess if Wikipedia wasn't under an "or later" clause.
I'll volunteer to add GPLv2 text to the top of all the files. Just let
me know when you want
On 10 Sep 2009, at 14:46, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
In GNU projects, the normal thing is that contributors sign a paper
which is sent in to GNU that they donate the code to GNU.
Nope.
"For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring
copyright to the FSF; that is a separate que
Don Armstrong wrote:
> This is now my problem,[1] so I'll attempt to get it addressed at some
> point in the future. [I'd certainly like to see Lilypond at least
> clear up some of the issues so that the above can become correct.]
Hmm, I noted you were listed as the Debian maintainer on Launchpad'
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In GNU projects, the normal thing is that contributors sign a paper
> which is sent in to GNU that they donate the code to GNU.
Nope.
"For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring
copyright to the FSF; that is a separate question. If you transfer
the
On 10 Sep 2009, at 11:20, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
You can't simply go around and change licenses, unless you are the
copyright
holder!
But you are the copyright owner of the LilyPond code.
Copyright belongs to the person who wrote the code (sometimes).
Unless explicitly signed over to
In message , Hans Aberg
writes
You can't simply go around and change licenses, unless you are the
copyright
holder!
But you are the copyright owner of the LilyPond code.
Copyright belongs to the person who wrote the code (sometimes). There is
no ONE owner of lilypond - it is spread amongst
On 10 Sep 2009, at 09:42, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 09:30:57 schrieb Hans Aberg:
I'm not a lawyer, but if I came across "v2 or latest" wording, my
advice would be to treat it as "v2 only" because to do anything else
IS TOO DANGEROUS. So your wording is self-def
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 09:30:57 schrieb Hans Aberg:
> > I'm not a lawyer, but if I came across "v2 or latest" wording, my
> > advice would be to treat it as "v2 only" because to do anything else
> > IS TOO DANGEROUS. So your wording is self-
On 10 Sep 2009, at 08:35, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
"Or later" will admit later restrictions, "or latest" will impose
them quietly on old sources.
BINGO!
And this is EXACTLY the problem with your suggestion. You are
RETROACTIVELY CHANGING THE LICENCE!
As has been pointed out elsewhere,
41 matches
Mail list logo
