Here is the current countdown report.
The next countdown will begin on February 17th.
A list of all merge requests can be found here:
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests?sort=label_priority
Push:
!1841 Bump a number of requirements - Jonas Hahnfeld
https://gitlab.com/li
Wol writes:
> On 15/02/2023 15:36, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> Code contributed to GNU LilyPond will*always* be under the GPL. You
>> can't change the license afterwards.
>
> Sorry. This is legal bullshit. If *I* contribute a file to lilypond,
> and *I* stick a *BSD* licence on it, the BSD licence
Le mercredi 15 février 2023 à 23:08 +, Wol a écrit :
> On 15/02/2023 17:05, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> > Wols Lists <[antli...@youngman.org.uk](mailto:antli...@youngman.org.uk)>
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > > On 15/02/2023 06:23, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > An individ
On 15/02/2023 17:05, David Kastrup wrote:
Wols Lists writes:
On 15/02/2023 06:23, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
An individual source file is an individual work.
Apparently you don't understand what licensing a work means. A license
is not something pervading files like copyright does. A licens
Wol writes:
> On 15/02/2023 17:08, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Wols Lists writes:
>>
>>> On 15/02/2023 02:01, David Kastrup wrote:
> Personally, I'd be happiest if everybody who updated a file was
> responsible for making sure the copyright date was updated
> appropriately,
>>>
Tha
Le mercredi 15 février 2023 à 22:12 +, Wol a écrit :
> On 15/02/2023 15:36, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > Code contributed to GNU LilyPond will*always* be under the GPL. You
> > can't change the license afterwards.
>
>
> Sorry. This is legal bullshit. If *I* contribute a file to lilypond, an
On 15/02/2023 15:36, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Code contributed to GNU LilyPond will*always* be under the GPL. You
can't change the license afterwards.
Sorry. This is legal bullshit. If *I* contribute a file to lilypond, and
*I* stick a *BSD* licence on it, the BSD licence does *NOT* give *YOU*
On 15/02/2023 17:08, David Kastrup wrote:
Wols Lists writes:
On 15/02/2023 02:01, David Kastrup wrote:
Personally, I'd be happiest if everybody who updated a file was
responsible for making sure the copyright date was updated
appropriately,
That is going to work fantastically well, right?
Jean Abou Samra writes:
> Le mercredi 15 février 2023 à 18:05 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> No GNU program requiring a copyright assignment for working on it has
>> ceased doing so as far as I know,
>
> [Off-topic]
>
> Actually, both GCC and Guile have done so by now.
>
> [https://gcc.gnu
Le mercredi 15 février 2023 à 18:05 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
> No GNU program requiring a copyright assignment for working on it has
> ceased doing so as far as I know,
[Off-topic]
Actually, both GCC and Guile have done so by now.
[https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html
Wols Lists writes:
> On 15/02/2023 02:01, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd be happiest if everybody who updated a file was
>>> responsible for making sure the copyright date was updated
>>> appropriately,
>
>> That is going to work fantastically well, right? Distribute
>> responsibility
Wols Lists writes:
> On 15/02/2023 06:23, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>
IMHO it's even simpler - is it fraud? (I don't know the answer, but
it feels like it, and we shouldn't do it without legal advice).
>>>
>>> The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_ _whole_, so it is
>>> definitely n
Le mardi 14 février 2023 à 10:16 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
> I can understand this discussion about whitespace/formatting changes
> (`git blame -w` helps and can be set as the default behavior). For the
> grand replace, it seems like a nothingburger to me.
I spent nonzero time (not a wh
I support Werner's view that as part of a group we ought to stay in line
with the guidelines of the group.
However, if the guidelines permit doing SPDX-noyear, I believe it would be
an excellent move.
Luca
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 5:46 PM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le lundi 13 février 2023 à 23:50
Le lundi 13 février 2023 à 23:50 +0100, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit :
> it is weird, but so is doing the grand update. We could decide to trim
> our license headers to a smaller SPDX identifier without a year, but
> we still have another year to go before a decision would make a
> difference.
> An individual source file is an individual work.
I have almost stopped reading here – this assumption is simply
incorrect. Right now, there are 6322 files which in total represent
GNU LilyPond.
> What happens if I decide to add a file under a BSD licence?
Code contributed to GNU LilyPond wil
On 15/02/2023 02:01, David Kastrup wrote:
Personally, I'd be happiest if everybody who updated a file was
responsible for making sure the copyright date was updated
appropriately,
That is going to work fantastically well, right? Distribute
responsibility until nobody feels responsible for any
On 15/02/2023 06:23, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
IMHO it's even simpler - is it fraud? (I don't know the answer, but
it feels like it, and we shouldn't do it without legal advice).
The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_ _whole_, so it is
definitely not fraud to update the license headers in l
18 matches
Mail list logo
