Long ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was still an
undergraduate student, we had Documentation/topdocs/AUTHORS.texi,
and all was well. At some point, we added a THANKS. Somewhat
later, everybody stopped updating AUTHORS. Right now, I'm not
even certain if the THANKS is maintained.
As
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:03:05AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
The manuals include the FDL, so I'd argue that it's clear that the
sources are under the same license. I'd argue the same about the
source files, actually.
This is basically about good (unambiguous)
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 04:32:16PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
I think this is a fairly uncontroversial addition (it's just stating in
each file what's already true) so I'm submitting these patches now
rather than later.
For the benefit of the mailist archives, this *is* controversial,
but
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 01:08:34AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
The main aim is not relicensing but just to try and get a handle on who
wrote what parts of Lilypond.
As long as we know who contributed to lilypond (that's a separate
question), knowing exactly who wrote what is only useful if we
Hi Carl, Neil,
I'm quite happy to re-think the proposal if what I have in mind
contravenes existing design architecture.
Put it down to relative inexperience and the fact I don't get
opportunity to work on lilly as often as I'd like.
Anyhow, here are some of the reasons why I'd like to do
On 9/19/09 7:27 AM, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote:
Hi Carl, Neil,
I'm quite happy to re-think the proposal if what I have in mind contravenes
existing design architecture.
Put it down to relative inexperience and the fact I don't get opportunity to
work on lilly as often as I'd
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
But we *don't* have a licensing situation on a file-by-file
basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
else[2] is GPLv2.
[1] it would be very useful if somebody could create an example to
replace
Graham Percival wrote:
Bugger the GNU project guidelines. They're not the be-all and
end-all of good project mangement. In many ways, they're pure
rubbish. Toodle-pip, cheers, and all that.
(I'm trying to be more British... I was really surprised at the
use of cheers here. It's a
The only thing I can tell is that you need to remove the part about
needing python, since (as the doc says) Python is now bundled.
Other than that, the rest looks accurate and complete to me.
-Travis
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Thu, Sep
Le vendredi 18 septembre 2009 à 06:56 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
Some time later today (knock on wood) I'll make the official
2.13.4 release. This will happen whenever I manage to solve or
bludgeon all the issues involved in building GUB on my university
machine. As such,
- I'm not
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:19:20PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
But we *don't* have a licensing situation on a file-by-file
basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
else[2] is GPLv2.
What about
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:34:41PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
Le vendredi 18 septembre 2009 à 06:56 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
Some time later today (knock on wood) I'll make the official
2.13.4 release. This will happen whenever I manage to solve or
bludgeon all the issues
I'll volunteer for helping regtest.
You just look at two output images and compare them, right? Any
difference, the test fails?
-Travis
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:34:41PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
Le vendredi
Graham Percival wrote:
There's a *ton* of other janitorial work to be done, especially by
people who have proven that they're willing to do work (about 50%
of people who say hey, I want to help out never do anything!).
And not only that, but you're capable of using git! There's lots
of stuff
In message 4ab5056a.9010...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes
[1] Where the licensing issue might be important is this: what if
someone forks Lilypond and adds a bunch of their own code with a
different but compatible license statement -- like GPLv2+? It helps
In message 1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost, John Mandereau
john.mander...@gmail.com writes
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
But we *don't* have a licensing situation on a file-by-file
basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 19:45 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman a
écrit :
The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make the argument that the
snippet
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 18:34 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
I'd rather not keep track of individual licenses in the source
tree. Since he's stated that his work is in public domain,
there'd be no problems with people extracting it for any CC stuff.
... err wait, are we talking about
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Aarrgghh.
The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make the argument that the
snippet is too small to qualify for
2009/9/19 John Mandereau john.mander...@gmail.com:
Is it worth I generate a regtest comparison manually (without gub, doing
git checkout release/2.12.3-0;make test-baseline;
git checkout release/2.12.4-1;make check) and upload it somewhere.
If it's not too much trouble for you to do this,
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 21:50 +0100, Neil Puttock a écrit :
If it's not too much trouble for you to do this, John, I'd be
interested to know whether you can get it too work; I've been trying
without success over the last few weeks to do comparisons between
various 2.12 2.13 releases.
2009/9/19 John Mandereau john.mander...@gmail.com:
Ugh, this is weird. I'll try comparing 2.12 and master, and 2.13.3 and
master.
Cheers.
I don't know whether it's significant, but I've found it's easy to
tell when the testing's gone wrong, since the job forking message has
too few jobs (on
2009/9/14 Michael Käppler xmichae...@web.de:
Hmm, I can't reproduce this here. Can you try again and send me an png if it
still fails?
It's still pretty bad; see the attached image.
Regards,
Neil
attachment: granados.preview.png___
lilypond-devel
In message 4ab53f73.1080...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Aarrgghh.
The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
whoever wrote the
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Anthony W. Youngman
lilyp...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote:
(I don't know, but there's been a fair bit of discussion, on and off, on
debian legal as to whether it is even *possible* for some people to consign
their work to the public domain - the *law* apparently
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:45:46 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
In message 1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost, John Mandereau
On the opposite, note that snippets from LSR are public domain, not FDL.
Aarrgghh.
The snippets are not public
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
If you really want to keep on doing copyright stuff, then I'd
suggest that you look into the licenses of the projects which
lilypond *links* to. Stuff like ghostscript doesn't
Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond
can't use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with
GPLv2... So, lilypond then has to switch to GPLv3... But then we
have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising
clause, thus incompatible with
28 matches
Mail list logo
