Wols Lists writes:
> On 02/11/16 15:14, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Your duty is to license the whole work you distribute under the
>> terms of the GPL, with due notices attached and the licensing obvious to
>> the downstream recipient. If you fail to do so, you are in violation of
>> the
On 02/11/16 15:14, David Kastrup wrote:
> Wols Lists writes:
>
>> On 31/10/16 10:08, David Kastrup wrote:
> The repository contains among others
> - encoded music
> - Scheme functions created for the project
> - Scheme functions created using included code from LilyPond and GPLed
Wols Lists writes:
> On 31/10/16 10:08, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> > The repository contains among others
>>> > - encoded music
>>> > - Scheme functions created for the project
>>> > - Scheme functions created using included code from LilyPond and GPLed
>>> > openLilyLib
>>> > - Scheme functions cr
On 31/10/16 09:04, Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2016-10-31 9:48 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>>
>>> When entering a new snippet first thing you read is:
>>>
>>> "Important: By entering your snippet, you are placing it in the public
>>> domain. This includes also snippets taken from
On 31/10/16 10:08, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > The repository contains among others
>> > - encoded music
>> > - Scheme functions created for the project
>> > - Scheme functions created using included code from LilyPond and GPLed
>> > openLilyLib
>> > - Scheme functions created by modifying functions
Edward Ardzinski writes:
> After reading these replies I may not be wiser...but it did occur to
> me that there might be a flaw in my thinking as I do the "programming"
> with Frescobaldi. Does that have an impact on any of these issues?
> Would have been changed looking back to the "old days" w
y own editor I
wrote in Visual C++?
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Question-for-a-FLOSS-licensing-session-tp195867p195932.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailin
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 31. Oktober 2016 01:43:26 GMT-07:00, schrieb David Kastrup :
>>Carl Sorensen writes:
>>
>>> To make what I consider an apt analogy, using gcc doesn't require any
>>> programs you create to be GPL'd.
>>
>>GCC has a special exception in the licensing exempting the startup
>>
Am 31. Oktober 2016 01:43:26 GMT-07:00, schrieb David Kastrup :
>Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> To make what I consider an apt analogy, using gcc doesn't require any
>> programs you create to be GPL'd.
>
>GCC has a special exception in the licensing exempting the startup
>stubs
>and other fixed mate
Am 31. Oktober 2016 01:41:54 GMT-07:00, schrieb Thomas Morley
:
>2016-10-31 3:39 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>
>> And of course
>> the _corresponding_ source code which will in general be under
>control
>> of the user. There are some considerations when LSR code and similar
>> gets copied into do
2016-10-31 9:48 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> When entering a new snippet first thing you read is:
>>
>> "Important: By entering your snippet, you are placing it in the public
>> domain. This includes also snippets taken from the Lilypond manual
>> (the manual authors gran
Thomas Morley writes:
> When entering a new snippet first thing you read is:
>
> "Important: By entering your snippet, you are placing it in the public
> domain. This includes also snippets taken from the Lilypond manual
> (the manual authors grant you their permission to do so)."
Is that a spec
Carl Sorensen writes:
> To make what I consider an apt analogy, using gcc doesn't require any
> programs you create to be GPL'd.
GCC has a special exception in the licensing exempting the startup stubs
and other fixed material it might place into the code from requiring
licensing. The generated
2016-10-31 3:39 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> And of course
> the _corresponding_ source code which will in general be under control
> of the user. There are some considerations when LSR code and similar
> gets copied into documents: in that case, the source code of the
> document might come under
On 10/30/16 5:40 AM, "Urs Liska" wrote:
>
>
>Am 30.10.2016 um 20:26 schrieb Edward Ardzinski:
>> Does this matter to the average user? Probably not. But some here use
>>LP for more than I do.
>>
>> But I'm not sure why the programming should be separated from the
>>output?
>
>Because that mi
Urs Liska writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm right now at the GSoC mentors summit and already had a bunch of
> interesting sessions.
>
> One specific one that is to come this afternoon is a Q&A session about
> FLOSS licensing, done by a FSF lawyer. I want to take the opportunity to
> raise a question that
Am 30.10.2016 um 20:26 schrieb Edward Ardzinski:
> Does this matter to the average user? Probably not. But some here use LP
> for more than I do.
>
> But I'm not sure why the programming should be separated from the output?
Because that might lead to the situation that the license applying t
Does this matter to the average user? Probably not. But some here use LP for
more than I do.
But I'm not sure why the programming should be separated from the output? From
my perspective the programming IS the music, be it a PDF score or the MIDI
files I use to make my MP3 demos.
Certainly
Hi all,
I'm right now at the GSoC mentors summit and already had a bunch of
interesting sessions.
One specific one that is to come this afternoon is a Q&A session about
FLOSS licensing, done by a FSF lawyer. I want to take the opportunity to
raise a question that in some way or another pops up ar
19 matches
Mail list logo
