Re: Future of openLilyLib

What would the difference be should _lilypond_ use LGPL instead of GPL? I'm sorry, I think the OP amounts to a type of elaborate trolling of the community. Nothing needs changing. This has all been gone through. I can only perceive this as an attempt to damage openlilylib in people's minds (heaven

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Am Dienstag, den 22.09.2020, 17:29 +1000 schrieb Andrew Bernard: > What would the difference be should _lilypond_ use LGPL instead of > GPL? I'm sorry, I think the OP amounts to a type of elaborate > trolling > of the community. Nothing needs changing. I think so too. > > This has all been gone

Move breathing sign hoizontally

Can you move a \breathe left or right? And if so, can you move parentheses along with it? Andrew %= \version "2.21.6" { \override BreathingSign.Y-offset = #4 c''2 \parenthesize \breathe c''4 c'' }

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Dear Carl; here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy: (1.A) MIT/GNU Scheme: (a) is an interpreter of the Scheme programming language (b) is licensed under the GPL (c) takes Scheme Code & delivers output (https://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/) => Any Scheme code being ta

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Hi. Moving back to the ML; it was not my intention to discuss this "off-list"; I hope I won't be sued for public disclosure of a private communication. ;-) [See quoted text for the two messages that went off-list.] 2020-09-22 12:40 UTC+02:00, Karsten Reincke : > > On 22.09.20 12:17, Gilles Sadow

Re: Move breathing sign hoizontally

On 2020-09-22 1:48 am, Andrew Bernard wrote: Can you move a \breathe left or right? And if so, can you move parentheses along with it? Andrew %= \version "2.21.6" { \override BreathingSign.Y-offset = #4 c''2 \parenthesize \breathe c''4 c'' } Curious... it would seem non-musical item

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Carl Sorensen writes: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:00 PM Karsten Reincke wrote > > >> >> We had this discussion a year ago and I won't repeat the details. The >> last time it ended in a kind of unfruitful shitstorm which did not >> help anyone. But if you now look for supporters, you have to see

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Karsten Reincke writes: > Dear Carl; > > here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy: > > > (1.A) MIT/GNU Scheme: > (a) is an interpreter of the Scheme programming language > (b) is licensed under the GPL > (c) takes Scheme Code & delivers output > > (https://www.gnu.org/softwar

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Jacques Menu writes: > Hello everybody, > > The legal subtleties of public licensing never made their way into my > mind, sorry for being limited… > What would the difference be, should openLilyLib use LGPL instead of GPL? You could use and distribute OLL derivatives integrated with non-GPL lice

Re: Future of openLilyLib

> On Sep 22, 2020, at 4:30 AM, Karsten Reincke wrote: > Dear Carl; > > here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy: > You are conflating the GPL as applied to functional software versus the rights of the user for the content produced through the use of that functional soft

Re: Future of openLilyLib

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:08 AM Karsten Reincke wrote: > Dear Carl; > > here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy: > > > (1.A) MIT/GNU Scheme: > (a) is an interpreter of the Scheme programming language > (b) is licensed under the GPL > (c) takes Scheme Code & delivers output >

Re: Future of openLilyLib

On 22.09.20 14:58, Tim McNamara wrote: On Sep 22, 2020, at 4:30 AM, Karsten Reincke wrote: Dear Carl; here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy: You are conflating the GPL as applied to functional software versus the rights of the user for the content produced throu

Re: Future of openLilyLib

On 22-9-2020 15:49, Carl Sorensen wrote: Since the music code is not included in the pdf output, the pdf output is not subject to GPL. The fact, that Mr. Bernard apparently does not want to realize point 5., puzzles me. I remain respectfully yours Karsten Reincke The ina

Re: Future of openLilyLib (to Gilles and David

On 22.09.20 13:05, Gilles Sadowski wrote: Hi. Moving back to the ML; it was not my intention to discuss this "off-list"; I hope I won't be sued for public disclosure of a private communication. ;-) No problem! Moreover, I appreciate your respectful way to clarify understandings before jumping

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Dear Carl; many thanks for your remarks, You'll find my answers int the text too On 22.09.20 15:49, Carl Sorensen wrote: [...] But here is where you lost me.  The program using guile-aspell must be released under the terms of GPL-v3. But the output of the program need not be released under

Re: Future of openLilyLib

On 22.09.20 14:58, Tim McNamara wrote: On Sep 22, 2020, at 4:30 AM, Karsten Reincke wrote: Dear Carl; here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy:  If I use Emacs to write a letter to my Aunt Tillie, even though Emacs is licensed under the GPL my letter to Aunt Tillie

Re: Future of openLilyLib (to Gilles and David

On 9/22/2020 10:50 AM, Karsten Reincke wrote: 2.B) But if yes, 'my' HelloWorld 'song' depends on the program ly- and/or scm files under /usr/share/lilypond/2.20.0/. They are licensed under the GPLv3. Thus, we have to deal with copyleft effect in any sense because a GPL v3 licensed code is integ

Re: Future of openLilyLib

On Sep 22, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Karsten Reincke wrote: > On 22.09.20 14:58, Tim McNamara wrote: >>> On Sep 22, 2020, at 4:30 AM, Karsten Reincke >>> wrote: >>> Dear Carl; >>> >>> here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy: >>> >> >> >> >> If I

Re: Future of openLilyLib

On Sep 22, 2020, at 10:20 AM, Partitura Organum wrote: > > Karsten […] mentioned the lilypond-files: "OpenLilyLib is licensed under the > GPL. Thus, the copyleft effect forces that all Lilypond files which include > OpenLilyLib files, have also to be distributed under the terms of the GPL.". >

Re: Future of openLilyLib

I probably shouldn’t be saying anything about this because I’m not an expert in licensing. However, Mr. Karsten’s assertion that “my work depends on OLL, not because I use lilypond, but because I functions of the OLL” is wrong. It implies that the content of a Lilypond file is dependent on Lilyp

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Sorry, I meant naturally Mr. Reincke, and not Mr. Karsten ;-). www.martinrinconbotero.com On 22. Sep 2020, 19:30 +0200, Tim McNamara , wrote: > On Sep 22, 2020, at 10:20 AM, Partitura Organum > wrote: > > > > Karsten […] mentioned the lilypond-files: "OpenLilyLib is licensed under > > the GPL.

Re: Licensing (was: Future of openLilyLib)

> Am 22.09.2020 um 19:29 schrieb Tim McNamara : > I am curious- is there a parallel discussion among LaTeX users? I’ve never > used LaTeX nor been part of discussions in the that community, but the > operating similarities are strong (a text input file with formatting markup > producing an o

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Hi Karsten, I gratefully appreciate your work on LilyPond. Because of your friendly and affectionate way of sharing your knowledge in this mailing list - as I was allowed to experience it in the past - I also want to believe that OpenLilylib is valuable. Personally, I refrained from familiari

Once for all and one last time (was Future of openLilyLib)

Dear ML members; The thread becomes longer and longer. Hence I am going to summarize my concerns and won't repeat myself never again: 1) In the beginning, there was the ask of Urs to be supported by developing OLL because he wants to reduce his efforts. For making OLL a little more welcoming

RE: Future of openLilyLib

> -Original Message- > From: David Kastrup > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 8:12 AM > To: Karsten Reincke > Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org; Carl Sorensen > Subject: Re: Future of openLilyLib > > Karsten Reincke writes: > > > Summary: > > > > If I wrote a piece of music using LilyPond Cod

Re: Future of openLilyLib

Hi all, I guess the problem raised here is tough (is LilyPond a markup language or a programming library, since you in fact mix notes and Scheme programs?). Nevertheless, I'd like to make a point that seems to have been overlooked so far: it's absolutely impossible to change the licensing of Lil

Re: Unable to attach a bend to an \afterGrace note with the bend spanner

Il giorno dom 20 set 2020 alle 12:33, Jonas Hahnfeld ha scritto: Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2020, 12:27 +0200 schrieb Federico Bruni: Il giorno gio 17 set 2020 alle 11:11, Thomas Morley ha scritto: > the bend-engraver-thingies are not part of core LilyPond. > Please post at least the lin

Re: Unable to attach a bend to an \afterGrace note with the bend spanner

Re OLL, why not, actually? Putting into OLL is a simple matter of creating a directory and placing the unmodified code in a file names module.ily. It's nice to provide an example file to go along with it as well. That's very little 'adaptation'. Urs and I are trying to promote OLL by explainin

Partially dashed phrasing slurs

Using \phrasingSlurHalfDashed is great. But how can I set the dash pattern to a smaller fraction than half, say the first eighth of the slur? and indeed, how can you put the dash as the right hand side? I think the question is clear without an MWE. Although I am fluent in Postscript, I'd prefer to

Re: Partially dashed phrasing slurs

On 2020-09-22 6:39 pm, Andrew Bernard wrote: Using \phrasingSlurHalfDashed is great. But how can I set the dash pattern to a smaller fraction than half, say the first eighth of the slur? and indeed, how can you put the dash as the right hand side? I think the question is clear without an MWE. Al

Re: Partially dashed phrasing slurs

Missed it in the NR! Sorry. Brilliant as always Aaron. My gratitude. Andrew On 23/09/2020 12:46 pm, Aaron Hill wrote: The details you need are documented in the Notation Reference [1]. [1]: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-as-curves#index-dash-patterns_