On Sunday 13 February 2005 23.13, Sebastiano Vigna wrote: > On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 23:02 +0100, Erik Sandberg wrote: > > I found 2 general issues about the LSR, for your todo: > > > > - First, someone pointed out that it doesn't work properly with Opera. I > > verified with W3C's validator (http://validator.w3.org/), that at least > > the main page http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/ is _not_ valid html. > > Let's put things in perspective. > > The mistake you point out is a missing couple of quotes that wasn't > there up to yesterday--my mistake. The entire site validates > flawlessly--I'm pretty maniac about validation and formal specifications > in general.
OK! that's great, I didn't know about this. I apologize. The reason for my remark was pure prejudice. The website looks a bit hi-tech, and it happens (too) often that hi-tech-looking pages use bad html. When someone reported that it didn't work, I just did a quick w3c check. > For a comparison, lilypond.org's homepage has no DOCTYPE and > produces 12 errors. ouch.. this should be fixed! > > - We should decide about the licensing. My guess is that we want to make > > the snippets public domain. And I don't think anything gets public domain > > unless you specify that explicitly. You can get help on how to write > > public domain statements at: http://creativecommons.org/ > > I thought about that, and I would have put up the question myself. > > The problem with public domain is that we are going to put in snippets > from the manual, and the manual is not public domain. > > One solution is to state clearly in the entry form that whatever you > write because part of the manual, and that by entering your snippet > you're transferring copyright to "the authors" (that's what's written in > the Copyright statement of the manual: we probably need something more > explicit), which will distribute it under the GFDL. > > I don't think anyone will be put down by such a statement, and it would > allow, say, to distribute an automatically generated snippet manual > without legal problems. > > On the same line, I started to distribute all the sources of the > infrastructure under the GPL (even if they won't compile presently as > they need a custom MG4J). Another alternative is to ask all authors of test/ code, if they are willing to donate those snippets to Public Domain, using some kind of dual-licensing. I think most (all?) of it was written by the core developers, so there aren't too many people to ask. IMHO, there is a big point in using PD for LSR: Many snippets may be directly usable by cut&paste in .ly files, and it would be good to allow everyone to do this without restrictions. Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
