Re: License of code posted to this list
Am 9. Mai 2015 22:55:32 MESZ, schrieb David Bellows davebell...@gmail.com: Sorry about not contacting you sooner! It's perfectly OK! I'm sure I'm just way over-thinking the issue! I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. I think that probably works. I can just add that to the top of the file. I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has Ursno license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in the future, there would be no complication. Lilypond uses the GPL and can make use of code licensed to the public domain (anyone can use public domain code with any license for any purpose). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGovAdd I think applies. You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in any way with LilyPond's license? Nope. In fact version 3 of the GPL (the version that Lilypond uses) specifically mentions that it can be used with stuff licensed with the Affero GPL. The Affero clause was intended to close a potential loophole concerning web applications and otherwise uses the exact same wording as the GPL and is maintained by the FSF (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html). On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David. On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, David Bellows davebell...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, I have a big coding project that generates Lilypond files to be processed by Lilypond in an external process. My software is GPL. I make use of a couple of scripts that were produced on this list but have not been uploaded to the LSR. They are significant enough that I would consider them of concern when thinking about licensing issues. I've contacted the authors in each of these cases asking them to add license information to these scripts but so far I haven't heard back from them. OK, that's how these things go, but since things like this can come up again I was wondering if anyone has a knowledgeable opinion on the state of code posted to a mail list like this? Is it automatically public domain and so I don't need any additional licensing from the original authors? Does it make a difference if the scripts were derived from code from the LSR? Sorry about not contacting you sooner! I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in the future, there would be no complication. You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in any way with LilyPond's license? Best, David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: License of code posted to this list
Am 09.05.2015 um 23:06 schrieb David Bellows: I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has no license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. This sounds correct as well. Does just making the code available to the world in a public manner imply anything about it being OK to use it in another project? I don't know the answer to that and thus these questions. But you are correct, I'm betting, that the author does automatically own the copyright to the code (at least in the US). Should there be some kind of agreement that everyone signs off on when subscribing to the mail list concerning any code they might contribute? I *think* I've read an agreement somewhere that explicitly states what I wrote before, so if that's true we explicitly have no PD on the list. And is the line that David added sufficient?: I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. I would say you can take this as a sufficient license agreement that overrides the general list rules ;-) Urs Dave On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote: Am 9. Mai 2015 22:55:32 MESZ, schrieb David Bellows davebell...@gmail.com: Sorry about not contacting you sooner! It's perfectly OK! I'm sure I'm just way over-thinking the issue! I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. I think that probably works. I can just add that to the top of the file. I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has Ursno license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in the future, there would be no complication. Lilypond uses the GPL and can make use of code licensed to the public domain (anyone can use public domain code with any license for any purpose). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGovAdd I think applies. You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in any way with LilyPond's license? Nope. In fact version 3 of the GPL (the version that Lilypond uses) specifically mentions that it can be used with stuff licensed with the Affero GPL. The Affero clause was intended to close a potential loophole concerning web applications and otherwise uses the exact same wording as the GPL and is maintained by the FSF (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html). On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David. On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, David Bellows davebell...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, I have a big coding project that generates Lilypond files to be processed by Lilypond in an external process. My software is GPL. I make use of a couple of scripts that were produced on this list but have not been uploaded to the LSR. They are significant enough that I would consider them of concern when thinking about licensing issues. I've contacted the authors in each of these cases asking them to add license information to these scripts but so far I haven't heard back from them. OK, that's how these things go, but since things like this can come up again I was wondering if anyone has a knowledgeable opinion on the state of code posted to a mail list like this? Is it automatically public domain and so I don't need any additional licensing from the original authors? Does it make a difference if the scripts were derived from code from the LSR? Sorry about not contacting you sooner! I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in the future, there would be no complication. You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in any way with LilyPond's license? Best, David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user -- Urs Liska www.openlilylib.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: License of code posted to this list
Am 10.05.2015 um 00:00 schrieb David Bellows: Basically, if you want to be legal and you want to use some code you saw on the list, you need to get the author's permission. Hopefully, he put that permission in the post, otherwise you need to contact him. That said, the chances of anyone complaining are minimal, and in most jurisdictions breach of copyright is a civil offence so the damages will be small and the costs horrendous so nobody will want to do anything about it. Yeah, that's why I've been contacting everyone (fortunately there's only been two people so it's easy), just to be safe. I think most people have never thought about this issue and post to the list under the assumption they give their contents away to the public domain, while they do so only when submitting to the LSR (but as Anthony says: in some countries you can't even do that) Urs I'm trying to get my project hosted at https://savannah.nongnu.org/ which does require everything to be licensed as free software which apparently they audit and is why I need to make sure everything is in order. Plus it's just a good idea anyway. Dave On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk wrote: On 09/05/2015 22:06, David Bellows wrote: I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has no license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. This sounds correct as well. Does just making the code available to the world in a public manner imply anything about it being OK to use it in another project? I don't know the answer to that and thus these questions. But you are correct, I'm betting, that the author does automatically own the copyright to the code (at least in the US). The Berne Convention (which applies to pretty much every country in the world - the US was one of the last to join the system) says that EVERYTHING you write, by default, is your copyright, for a minimum term of 50 years. Various modifications apply, of course, for example employees are assumed for the purpose of this to be the employer, so the employer gets the copyright etc etc. The other crucial thing about Berne is that it says the nationality of the copyright holder is irrelevant (this was crucial because of the way the US made it almost impossible for foreign authors to register or keep copyrights). There's nothing, as far as I know, in Berne that says copyrights have to be protectable (a country could abolish copyright and still be compliant with Berne, as long as the same rules were applied to works by local nationals as to foreign nationals). So basically, unless the list post explicitly says this is PD, or this code may be used for any purpose, or some other grant of permission, then in most jurisdictions using it is technically illegal. A clear example of differences in jurisdiction is that if I used your code to make money, that's a criminal offense over here. But not afaik in America. Then in some jurisdictions you cannot abrogate your rights (EU especially), and in some jurisdictions you can't place stuff in the Public Domain. Should there be some kind of agreement that everyone signs off on when subscribing to the mail list concerning any code they might contribute? And is the line that David added sufficient?: Dunno about what David wrote, but I'm sure I didn't sign off on anything when I joined the list. Basically, if you want to be legal and you want to use some code you saw on the list, you need to get the author's permission. Hopefully, he put that permission in the post, otherwise you need to contact him. That said, the chances of anyone complaining are minimal, and in most jurisdictions breach of copyright is a civil offence so the damages will be small and the costs horrendous so nobody will want to do anything about it. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
License of code posted to this list
Hello all, I have a big coding project that generates Lilypond files to be processed by Lilypond in an external process. My software is GPL. I make use of a couple of scripts that were produced on this list but have not been uploaded to the LSR. They are significant enough that I would consider them of concern when thinking about licensing issues. I've contacted the authors in each of these cases asking them to add license information to these scripts but so far I haven't heard back from them. OK, that's how these things go, but since things like this can come up again I was wondering if anyone has a knowledgeable opinion on the state of code posted to a mail list like this? Is it automatically public domain and so I don't need any additional licensing from the original authors? Does it make a difference if the scripts were derived from code from the LSR? Thanks! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: License of code posted to this list
Sorry about not contacting you sooner! It's perfectly OK! I'm sure I'm just way over-thinking the issue! I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. I think that probably works. I can just add that to the top of the file. My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in the future, there would be no complication. Lilypond uses the GPL and can make use of code licensed to the public domain (anyone can use public domain code with any license for any purpose). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGovAdd I think applies. You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in any way with LilyPond's license? Nope. In fact version 3 of the GPL (the version that Lilypond uses) specifically mentions that it can be used with stuff licensed with the Affero GPL. The Affero clause was intended to close a potential loophole concerning web applications and otherwise uses the exact same wording as the GPL and is maintained by the FSF (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html). On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David. On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, David Bellows davebell...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, I have a big coding project that generates Lilypond files to be processed by Lilypond in an external process. My software is GPL. I make use of a couple of scripts that were produced on this list but have not been uploaded to the LSR. They are significant enough that I would consider them of concern when thinking about licensing issues. I've contacted the authors in each of these cases asking them to add license information to these scripts but so far I haven't heard back from them. OK, that's how these things go, but since things like this can come up again I was wondering if anyone has a knowledgeable opinion on the state of code posted to a mail list like this? Is it automatically public domain and so I don't need any additional licensing from the original authors? Does it make a difference if the scripts were derived from code from the LSR? Sorry about not contacting you sooner! I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in the future, there would be no complication. You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in any way with LilyPond's license? Best, David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: License of code posted to this list
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote: Am 09.05.2015 um 23:06 schrieb David Bellows: I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has no license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. This sounds correct as well. Does just making the code available to the world in a public manner imply anything about it being OK to use it in another project? I don't know the answer to that and thus these questions. But you are correct, I'm betting, that the author does automatically own the copyright to the code (at least in the US). Should there be some kind of agreement that everyone signs off on when subscribing to the mail list concerning any code they might contribute? I *think* I've read an agreement somewhere that explicitly states what I wrote before, so if that's true we explicitly have no PD on the list. And is the line that David added sufficient?: I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. I would say you can take this as a sufficient license agreement that overrides the general list rules ;-) Yes. I'm happy to license this under the GPL. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: woff svg
Thanks I will keep a watch on it. Stephen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: License of code posted to this list
Hi David. On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, David Bellows davebell...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, I have a big coding project that generates Lilypond files to be processed by Lilypond in an external process. My software is GPL. I make use of a couple of scripts that were produced on this list but have not been uploaded to the LSR. They are significant enough that I would consider them of concern when thinking about licensing issues. I've contacted the authors in each of these cases asking them to add license information to these scripts but so far I haven't heard back from them. OK, that's how these things go, but since things like this can come up again I was wondering if anyone has a knowledgeable opinion on the state of code posted to a mail list like this? Is it automatically public domain and so I don't need any additional licensing from the original authors? Does it make a difference if the scripts were derived from code from the LSR? Sorry about not contacting you sooner! I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in the future, there would be no complication. You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in any way with LilyPond's license? Best, David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: License of code posted to this list
On 09/05/2015 22:06, David Bellows wrote: I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has no license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. This sounds correct as well. Does just making the code available to the world in a public manner imply anything about it being OK to use it in another project? I don't know the answer to that and thus these questions. But you are correct, I'm betting, that the author does automatically own the copyright to the code (at least in the US). The Berne Convention (which applies to pretty much every country in the world - the US was one of the last to join the system) says that EVERYTHING you write, by default, is your copyright, for a minimum term of 50 years. Various modifications apply, of course, for example employees are assumed for the purpose of this to be the employer, so the employer gets the copyright etc etc. The other crucial thing about Berne is that it says the nationality of the copyright holder is irrelevant (this was crucial because of the way the US made it almost impossible for foreign authors to register or keep copyrights). There's nothing, as far as I know, in Berne that says copyrights have to be protectable (a country could abolish copyright and still be compliant with Berne, as long as the same rules were applied to works by local nationals as to foreign nationals). So basically, unless the list post explicitly says this is PD, or this code may be used for any purpose, or some other grant of permission, then in most jurisdictions using it is technically illegal. A clear example of differences in jurisdiction is that if I used your code to make money, that's a criminal offense over here. But not afaik in America. Then in some jurisdictions you cannot abrogate your rights (EU especially), and in some jurisdictions you can't place stuff in the Public Domain. Should there be some kind of agreement that everyone signs off on when subscribing to the mail list concerning any code they might contribute? And is the line that David added sufficient?: Dunno about what David wrote, but I'm sure I didn't sign off on anything when I joined the list. Basically, if you want to be legal and you want to use some code you saw on the list, you need to get the author's permission. Hopefully, he put that permission in the post, otherwise you need to contact him. That said, the chances of anyone complaining are minimal, and in most jurisdictions breach of copyright is a civil offence so the damages will be small and the costs horrendous so nobody will want to do anything about it. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: License of code posted to this list
Yes. I'm happy to license this under the GPL.
In that case if you could add the following notice (substituting your
name, etc) to the top of the attached auto-ottava file then I think
we'd have it:
one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.
Copyright (C) year name of author
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
Thanks, and sorry for all the extra work! (Though I am a little
surprised this hasn't come up before?)
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:33 PM, David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote:
Am 09.05.2015 um 23:06 schrieb David Bellows:
I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted
to the list is by default with the author and has no license by itself. So
I
think you can't assume it's PD.
This sounds correct as well. Does just making the code available to
the world in a public manner imply anything about it being OK to use
it in another project? I don't know the answer to that and thus these
questions. But you are correct, I'm betting, that the author does
automatically own the copyright to the code (at least in the US).
Should there be some kind of agreement that everyone signs off on when
subscribing to the mail list concerning any code they might
contribute?
I *think* I've read an agreement somewhere that explicitly states what I
wrote before, so if that's true we explicitly have no PD on the list.
And is the line that David added sufficient?:
I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your
project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody
who sees utility in it.
I would say you can take this as a sufficient license agreement that
overrides the general list rules ;-)
Yes. I'm happy to license this under the GPL.
David
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
\version 2.19.15
#(define (ledger-line-no middle-C-pos p)
Returns the number of ledger-lines a pitch @var{p} will have with
middle C position @var{middle-C-pos} expressed as staff-steps from the
middle staff line.
(let* ((ps (ly:pitch-steps p))
(mid-staff-steps (- middle-C-pos))
(top-line (+ mid-staff-steps 4))
(bottom-line (- mid-staff-steps 4))
(above? ( ps top-line))
(below? ( ps bottom-line))
(steps-outside-staff
(cond
(below? (- ps bottom-line))
(above? (- ps top-line))
(else 0
(truncate (/ steps-outside-staff 2
#(define (find-clefMiddleCPosition mus)
(let ((clef-pos -6)) ; treble is default
(for-some-music
(lambda (x)
(let ((n (ly:music-property x 'symbol)))
(and (eq? n 'middleCClefPosition)
(set! clef-pos (ly:music-property x 'value)
mus)
clef-pos))
#(define clefs
; An alist of (clef . position of middle C) pairs. Center line of staff = 0.
; For use when \ottavate is called on a music expression which begins with a
; clef other than treble, which has been set before that expression.
'((treble . -6)
(treble_8 . 1)
(bass . 6)
(bass_8 . 13)
(alto . 0)
(tenor . 2)))
#(define (make-ottava-music arg)
(list (make-music
'OttavaMusic
'ottava-number arg)))
#(define (select-ottava-music str)
(let ((options
'((up-an-octave . 1)
(down-an-octave . -1)
(up-two-octaves . 2)
(down-two-octaves . -2)
(loco . 0
(make-ottava-music (assoc-get str options
#(define naming-options
'((short . ((up-an-octave . 8)
(down-an-octave . 8)
(up-two-octaves . 15)
(down-two-octaves . 15)
(loco . #f)))
(long . ((up-an-octave . 8va)
(down-an-octave . 8va bassa)
(up-two-octaves . 15ma)
(down-two-octaves . 15ma)
(loco , #f)))
(default . #f)))
#(define (make-alternate-name name)
(let* ((ps (make-music
'PropertySet
'symbol 'ottavation
'value name))
(csm (make-music
'ContextSpeccedMusic
'element ps
Re: resetOctaveCheck cannot be removed with a tag
Reinhold Kainhofer lists at kainhofer.com writes:
I'm trying to store that part into a separate variable and use
resetRelativeOctave for the octave jumps. I'm tagging those
resetRelative and try to filter them out for the first occurrance or for
the repetition. Unfortunately, tagging resetRelatativeOctave and
filtering out with removeWithTag does NOT work.
You had a \relative applied before the \remove-with-tag
\transpose f c {
\removeWithTag #'A {
\relative c' {
f2 f
\tag #'A \resetRelativeOctave c''
c2 c }}}
so the octaves of the pitches were determined while your \resetRelativeOctave
was still in place. You need to apply the \relative after removing the tags
but before the transpose.
\transpose f c {
\relative c' {
\removeWithTag #'A {
f2 f
\tag #'A \resetRelativeOctave c''
c2 c }}}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Global Color Changes
Robin Klaus, thank you both. On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Klaus Blum benbigno...@gmx.de wrote: Peter Heisen wrote My goal is to change the foreground from black to, say, yellow; and the background from white to, say, blue. As for the background, you can start here: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=699 Cheers, Klaus -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Global-Color-Changes-tp176355p176357.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: License of code posted to this list
I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has no license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. This sounds correct as well. Does just making the code available to the world in a public manner imply anything about it being OK to use it in another project? I don't know the answer to that and thus these questions. But you are correct, I'm betting, that the author does automatically own the copyright to the code (at least in the US). Should there be some kind of agreement that everyone signs off on when subscribing to the mail list concerning any code they might contribute? And is the line that David added sufficient?: I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. Dave On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote: Am 9. Mai 2015 22:55:32 MESZ, schrieb David Bellows davebell...@gmail.com: Sorry about not contacting you sooner! It's perfectly OK! I'm sure I'm just way over-thinking the issue! I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. I think that probably works. I can just add that to the top of the file. I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has Ursno license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in the future, there would be no complication. Lilypond uses the GPL and can make use of code licensed to the public domain (anyone can use public domain code with any license for any purpose). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGovAdd I think applies. You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in any way with LilyPond's license? Nope. In fact version 3 of the GPL (the version that Lilypond uses) specifically mentions that it can be used with stuff licensed with the Affero GPL. The Affero clause was intended to close a potential loophole concerning web applications and otherwise uses the exact same wording as the GPL and is maintained by the FSF (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html). On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David. On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, David Bellows davebell...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, I have a big coding project that generates Lilypond files to be processed by Lilypond in an external process. My software is GPL. I make use of a couple of scripts that were produced on this list but have not been uploaded to the LSR. They are significant enough that I would consider them of concern when thinking about licensing issues. I've contacted the authors in each of these cases asking them to add license information to these scripts but so far I haven't heard back from them. OK, that's how these things go, but since things like this can come up again I was wondering if anyone has a knowledgeable opinion on the state of code posted to a mail list like this? Is it automatically public domain and so I don't need any additional licensing from the original authors? Does it make a difference if the scripts were derived from code from the LSR? Sorry about not contacting you sooner! I'm more than happy to let you use the auto-ottava code for your project. By posting it on this forum I make it available to anybody who sees utility in it. My concern (and consequent hesitation in answering) is simply that, should I or someone else decide incorporate it in the LilyPond code base in the future, there would be no complication. You mention that your software is Affero GPL. Would this conflict in any way with LilyPond's license? Best, David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: License of code posted to this list
Basically, if you want to be legal and you want to use some code you saw on the list, you need to get the author's permission. Hopefully, he put that permission in the post, otherwise you need to contact him. That said, the chances of anyone complaining are minimal, and in most jurisdictions breach of copyright is a civil offence so the damages will be small and the costs horrendous so nobody will want to do anything about it. Yeah, that's why I've been contacting everyone (fortunately there's only been two people so it's easy), just to be safe. I'm trying to get my project hosted at https://savannah.nongnu.org/ which does require everything to be licensed as free software which apparently they audit and is why I need to make sure everything is in order. Plus it's just a good idea anyway. Dave On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Anthonys Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk wrote: On 09/05/2015 22:06, David Bellows wrote: I'm not sure so this maybe wrong. But AFAIK copyright for content posted to the list is by default with the author and has no license by itself. So I think you can't assume it's PD. This sounds correct as well. Does just making the code available to the world in a public manner imply anything about it being OK to use it in another project? I don't know the answer to that and thus these questions. But you are correct, I'm betting, that the author does automatically own the copyright to the code (at least in the US). The Berne Convention (which applies to pretty much every country in the world - the US was one of the last to join the system) says that EVERYTHING you write, by default, is your copyright, for a minimum term of 50 years. Various modifications apply, of course, for example employees are assumed for the purpose of this to be the employer, so the employer gets the copyright etc etc. The other crucial thing about Berne is that it says the nationality of the copyright holder is irrelevant (this was crucial because of the way the US made it almost impossible for foreign authors to register or keep copyrights). There's nothing, as far as I know, in Berne that says copyrights have to be protectable (a country could abolish copyright and still be compliant with Berne, as long as the same rules were applied to works by local nationals as to foreign nationals). So basically, unless the list post explicitly says this is PD, or this code may be used for any purpose, or some other grant of permission, then in most jurisdictions using it is technically illegal. A clear example of differences in jurisdiction is that if I used your code to make money, that's a criminal offense over here. But not afaik in America. Then in some jurisdictions you cannot abrogate your rights (EU especially), and in some jurisdictions you can't place stuff in the Public Domain. Should there be some kind of agreement that everyone signs off on when subscribing to the mail list concerning any code they might contribute? And is the line that David added sufficient?: Dunno about what David wrote, but I'm sure I didn't sign off on anything when I joined the list. Basically, if you want to be legal and you want to use some code you saw on the list, you need to get the author's permission. Hopefully, he put that permission in the post, otherwise you need to contact him. That said, the chances of anyone complaining are minimal, and in most jurisdictions breach of copyright is a civil offence so the damages will be small and the costs horrendous so nobody will want to do anything about it. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: woff svg
Thanks Abraham I did go with png Stephen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Start with changed staff
Hallo Helge,
it works if you replace %s32 in the example below with s1*0.
(There is a warning about \voiceXXX or \shiftOn[nn], which will be easy
to fix).
Yours, Simon
Am 09.05.2015 um 08:25 schrieb Helge:
Hi,
I have to write some scores where each piece starts with a long note
simultaneous with an arpeggio down. This arpeggio shall be written
explicitly. This should be possible with this code
\version 2.19.16
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff = upper
\relative c'' {
\time 2/4
\repeat volta 2 {
e2
}
}
\new Staff = lower
\relative c'' {
\clef bass
\repeat volta 2 {
%s32
\change Staff = upper
e32
c g d \change Staff = lower c g c,4
s16
}
}
The problem is that the change Staff does not work at the very first
note. You can remove the % before the s32 and comment out the e32
to see how it should be, except that the melody line is missing the
first 32th note.
I would say that this is a bug. But do you have a nice workaround?
The \repeat volta is not necessary to reproduce the problem. But if
you have any idea to circumvent the problem it would be good when it
works even in this context.
Best regards
Helge#
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
layers in svg
Hi,
is it possible to move lilypond grobs to different layers in the svg
output? Currently all objects are in the same svg layer. I want to move
single objects to a different layer or group them in another way such
that they are easily accessible in the svg output later.
Does anybody know of a way to do that?
{
\override Slur.invented-move-to-svg-layer = 2
a( a)
}
TIA,
Joram
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: layers in svg
Am 09.05.2015 um 17:37 schrieb Noeck:
Hi,
is it possible to move lilypond grobs to different layers in the svg
output? Currently all objects are in the same svg layer. I want to move
single objects to a different layer or group them in another way such
that they are easily accessible in the svg output later.
Does anybody know of a way to do that?
{
\override Slur.invented-move-to-svg-layer = 2
a( a)
}
TIA,
Joram
No, I don't know how/if that is possible.
But if that could be made possible by adding a feature to LilyPond I
would be extremely interested to investigate how to do that for PDF too,
that is to create Optional Content Groups and place grobs on them.
That would for example make it possible to add annotations or to add
solutions to exam sheets that can be simply switched on and off in the
PDF viewer.
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Effect of empty chord on spacing
Not sure if this qualifies as a bug, but it's a little unexpected and
annoying. Using an empty chord to attach markup with full-bar rests
seems to change the spacing of the bars, the bar with the is
significantly shorter. Using a zero-duration skip (s1*0) has the same
effect.
This only seems to happen under certain circumstances: when the line is
full, and the rests are ultimately followed by some music.
\version 2.19.18 % same result with 2.18.2
{
R1
^\markup \column { attached to }
R1
R1
R1^\markup \column { attached to R1 }
c'1
\repeat unfold 16 c'16
}
--
Mark Knoop
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Effect of empty chord on spacing
At 18:06 on 09 May 2015, Mark Knoop wrote:
Not sure if this qualifies as a bug, but it's a little unexpected and
annoying. Using an empty chord to attach markup with full-bar rests
seems to change the spacing of the bars, the bar with the is
significantly shorter. Using a zero-duration skip (s1*0) has the same
effect.
This only seems to happen under certain circumstances: when the line is
full, and the rests are ultimately followed by some music.
\version 2.19.18 % same result with 2.18.2
{
R1
^\markup \column { attached to }
R1
R1
R1^\markup \column { attached to R1 }
c'1
\repeat unfold 16 c'16
}
This seems to be issue 3232, and indeed the workaround in comment #4
fixes the spacing.
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3232
--
Mark Knoop
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
resetOctaveCheck cannot be removed with a tag
Hi,
I have a movement where a large part at the beginning is later repeated
(transposed a fifth), but occasionally some measures are transposed an
octave up/down to make them playable on that instrument.
I'm trying to store that part into a separate variable and use
resetRelativeOctave for the octave jumps. I'm tagging those
resetRelative and try to filter them out for the first occurrance or for
the repetition. Unfortunately, tagging resetRelatativeOctave and
filtering out with removeWithTag does NOT work. (As a check: Filtering
dynamics works).
Attached is an example.
Any idea where the problem lies and how I can solve it?
I have also tried turning m into a music-function and redefining
resetRelativeOctave before the second call to \m, but that does not
work, either...
Thanks,
Reinhold
--
--
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://www.kainhofer.com/
* Open Tools, Software Development, http://www.open-tools.net/
* Edition Kainhofer, Music Publisher, http://www.edition-kainhofer.com/
\version 2.19.19
m=\relative c' {
f2-\tag #'I-only \f f |
\tag #'I-only \resetRelativeOctave c'
c2 c
}
\relative c' {
s1*0^second measure should be a jump down
\removeWithTag #'II-only \m
s1*0^second measure should be a jump UP (resetRelativeOctave filtered with tag)
% I try to filter out the resetRelativOctave with a tag, but that does not work. Filtering dynamics works fine!
\transpose f c \removeWithTag #'I-only \m
}
lily_tag_octave.pdf
Description: Zip archive
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: layers in svg
Op Sat, 09 May 2015 17:37:16 +0200
Noeck noeck.marb...@gmx.de schreef:
{
\override Slur.invented-move-to-svg-layer = 2
a( a)
}
There is already the layer property. Don't know if it is {possible to
use/used} in the SVG output library.
--
Wilbert Berendsen
(http://www.wilbertberendsen.nl)
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyric tie inside word?
Op Wed, 6 May 2015 02:30:15 +0200 Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@gmail.com schreef: It's code by Jan Nieuwenhuizen and we already have a tracker for it. I did only a few extendings. We used this in the Liedboek. Jan made it on my request :-) -- Wilbert Berendsen (http://www.wilbertberendsen.nl) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Global Color Changes
Dear List, Is there a way to globally change the color of an entire printed score without having to change every color property of every possible grob? My goal is to change the foreground from black to, say, yellow; and the background from white to, say, blue. Using \version 2.18.2. Thanks, Pete ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Global Color Changes
Peter Heisen wrote: Is there a way to globally change the color of an entire printed score without having to change every color property of every possible grob? Start here http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=443 Cheers, Robin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Global Color Changes
Peter Heisen wrote My goal is to change the foreground from black to, say, yellow; and the background from white to, say, blue. As for the background, you can start here: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=699 Cheers, Klaus -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Global-Color-Changes-tp176355p176357.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Start with changed staff
Hi,
I have to write some scores where each piece starts with a long note
simultaneous with an arpeggio down. This arpeggio shall be written
explicitly. This should be possible with this code
\version 2.19.16
\new PianoStaff
\new Staff = upper
\relative c'' {
\time 2/4
\repeat volta 2 {
e2
}
}
\new Staff = lower
\relative c'' {
\clef bass
\repeat volta 2 {
%s32
\change Staff = upper
e32
c g d \change Staff = lower c g c,4
s16
}
}
The problem is that the change Staff does not work at the very first
note. You can remove the % before the s32 and comment out the e32
to see how it should be, except that the melody line is missing the
first 32th note.
I would say that this is a bug. But do you have a nice workaround?
The \repeat volta is not necessary to reproduce the problem. But if
you have any idea to circumvent the problem it would be good when it
works even in this context.
Best regards
Helge#
--
GnuPG fingerprint: EDCE F8C8 B727 6CC5 7006 05C1 BD3F EADC 8922 1F61
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
