> On 14 Mar 2019, at 21:16, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
>>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>> Sigh. This discussion stated that they aren't distributing the
>>> documentation. Of course distributing the PDF without corresponding
>>> source code would
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Hans Åberg writes:
>>
On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup wrote:
The passage in question reads
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form
> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
>>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>> The passage in question reads
>>>
>>> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
>>>
>>> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
>>> of section
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> The passage in question reads
>>
>> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
>>
>> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
>> of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
>> machine-readable
> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> The passage in question reads
>
> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
>
> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
> of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
> machine-readable Corresponding Source under
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 17:00, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Hans Åberg writes:
>>
Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
everything you distribute.
>>>
>>> I
> On 14 Mar 2019, at 17:00, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg writes:
>
>>> Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
>>> but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
>>> everything you distribute.
>>
>> I think it suffices to have it
Hans Åberg writes:
>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:12, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>
> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even
> re-pack them together with documentatio
> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:12, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even
re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
>>> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even
>>> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
>>
>> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf
>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
>> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even
>> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
>
> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration
> one has to ma
> On 21 Oct 2018, at 10:56, Torsten Hämmerle wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I'm planning to fill in the Emmentaler gaps in the (very) near
> future ...
> The new glyph names for the tiny-arrowed accidentals (just the ones you
> currently use are mentioned here) will be
>
> accidentals.flatflat.1up
> On 14 Mar 2019, at 12:50, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>>> https://guide.macports.org/chunked/using.binaries.html#using.binaries.binary-packages
>>
>> Also, the MacPorts does not install any documentation, it seems.
>
> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
> getting
>>
>> https://guide.macports.org/chunked/using.binaries.html#using.binaries.binary-packages
>
> Also, the MacPorts does not install any documentation, it seems.
IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even
14 matches
Mail list logo
