On 10/29, Urs Liska wrote:
> Well, the LSR website explicitly states that it's contents is in the
> public domain. If I read correctly your email this would have to be
> considered illegal, especially given that many snippets there are
> uploaded not by their original authors but by someone who use
Dick Seabrook writes:
> Perhaps we need a "graffiti law" -- that anything written in a public place
> or on
> someone else's property becomes the property of the public, or owner
> respectively.
> Otherwise what right do owners have to clean graffiti off their buildings?
You are confusing owners
Yes, ... international copyright lawyer required for even such a simple
thing. In many cases it may be better to put nothing - as the GNU lists do
- and let national law deal with problems and interpretation. Whatever you
put, some jurisdiction somewhere will find it to be in error, and that just
c
Perhaps we need a "graffiti law" -- that anything written in a public place
or on
someone else's property becomes the property of the public, or owner
respectively.
Otherwise what right do owners have to clean graffiti off their buildings?
Dick S.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:06 AM Andrew Bernard
w
though I generally loathe such usage terms, wouldn't some clause in the
list's ToS to the effect that use of the list grants some nonexclusive but
unrestricted right to copy/use that material alleviate these concerns?
Those kinds of clauses are part of every online email service, for example
(since
You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic.
On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to support
GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous list with
100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in that
project
Am 29. Oktober 2019 02:57:30 MEZ schrieb ma...@masonhock.com:
>On 10/28, Klaus Blum wrote:
>> AFAIK, the public domain licence also applies to anything published
>on
>> the LY mailing list. I hope that I'm not wrong as I don't intend to
>> "steal" other people's code...
>
>I don't think that lis
On 10/28, Klaus Blum wrote:
> AFAIK, the public domain licence also applies to anything published on
> the LY mailing list. I hope that I'm not wrong as I don't intend to
> "steal" other people's code...
I don't think that list users agree to a CLA or otherwise give anyone
else the ability to deci
Hi everybody,
seems like I've missed an interesting discussion today... :)
Karsten Reincke-2 wrote
> I would like to discuss / learn, how
> his function fExtend works. Or does anyone know, how this methods
> works?
That fExtend function uses code that I've found in another thread on the
maili
On 10/28, Karsten Reincke wrote:
> The analysis package is a challenge for me:
>
> a) It is licensed under GPL. I think this is not appropriate for
> music.
Sure, the GPL is intended for software. For music, a CC license would
be more appropriate. The analysis package is pretty clearly software
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 29. Oktober 2019 00:04:06 MEZ schrieb David Kastrup :
>>Andrew Bernard 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
Am 29. Oktober 2019 00:04:06 MEZ schrieb David Kastrup :
>Andrew Bernard 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,
Am 28. Oktober 2019 19:06:46 MEZ schrieb Karsten Reincke :
>Dear Urs, dear Friends
>
>In general, I've started the adoption of LSR snippet 967 in a
>development branch of my harmonyli lib (
>https://github.com/kreincke/harmonyli/tree/develop). This snippet
>isvery well designed and written.
>
>
Andrew Bernard 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
> a
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?
Dear Urs, dear Friends
In general, I've started the adoption of LSR snippet 967 in a
development branch of my harmonyli lib (
https://github.com/kreincke/harmonyli/tree/develop). This snippet isvery well
designed and written.
[...]
> Klaus Blum is listed in that LSR snippet as the author, and h
> Am 2019-10-28 um 00:52 schrieb Urs Liska :
>
>> It's "public domain"
>> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/html/whatsthis.html
>>
>> Maybe LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one.
>> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
>
> I've read that there are jurisdictions where there
28. Oktober 2019 00:44, "Thomas Morley" schrieb:
> Am Mo., 28. Okt. 2019 um 00:22 Uhr schrieb Karsten Reincke
> :
>
>> BUT THERE IS A LICENSE QUESTION (very important in the area of free
>> software!) The example shown if you click on the graphik of
>> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=967 does
28. Oktober 2019 00:21, "Karsten Reincke" schrieb:
> Dear Urs;
>
> Many thanks for this quick and exhaustive answer! Let me briefly
> answer:
>
> 1) As long as lilypond-book has to be called at first and replaces the
> lilypond code in the LaTeX files by a section including the
> corresponding
Am Mo., 28. Okt. 2019 um 00:22 Uhr schrieb Karsten Reincke
:
> BUT THERE IS A LICENSE QUESTION (very important in the area of free
> software!) The example shown if you click on the graphik of
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=967 does not contain any license
> information. Does anyone know the
Dear Urs;
Many thanks for this quick and exhaustive answer! Let me briefly
answer:
1) As long as lilypond-book has to be called at first and replaces the
lilypond code in the LaTeX files by a section including the
corresponding picture, none LaTeX code can be combined with the
Lilypond code. And
Oops, forgot to CC the list.
But one more remark: You may have a look at the thread starting with
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-04/msg00335.html and
there especially the ZIP archive attached to
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-04/msg00351.html which
Dear Friends;
Musicologists need more than writing pure music scores. They must be
able to embed the score of music samples into their scientific texts.
And they must be able to integrate the symbols of the functional
harmony theory into the score of their music samples.
For using Lilypond with L
23 matches
Mail list logo
