Re: Why can't I post?
Surely there is a template for the Welcome to lilypond-user e-mail that gets sent out that could be edited to add Your posts will appear after the moderator approves your subscription. This could take up to a day. Regards, Jeff From: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com To: Anders Eriksson andis.eriks...@gmail.com Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:56 PM Subject: Re: Why can't I post? On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Anders Eriksson andis.eriks...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have just become a member of the lilypond-user list. Is there some waiting period or something else that makes my postings not reaching the list? Sometimes the messages get delayed a few hours. Janek ___ 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: Do one thing well...
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Jeff Barnes writes:
$ cat 'my-melody-in-lily-note-syntax.txt' | ~/bin/fourwayclose.pl |
lilypond
$ echo '{ a b c }' | LANG= lilypond -o stdin -
What's the LANG env variable for?
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Possible multiple bugs, any way around?
I think the problem (because I experienced it too with my first post) is that it takes up to a day to subscribe to the list. No feedback in the list welcome message, no bounced message in your mail box... You just never see it in the list, so one tries the web UI, re-posting, anything to try to get a response. If it takes longer than 5 or 10 minutes to authorize a new user to post, a warning should be put in the welcome e-mail. My .02. Jeff - Original Message - From: Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net To: lilypond-user@gnu.org Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Possible multiple bugs, any way around? On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:31 AM, Sami sami.ami...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone. I have witnessed a weird behaviour, You seem to have posted this about ten times in a couple of different ways. It takes time to let people generate responses. ___ 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: Appreciation / Financial support
From: Tim McNamara On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Jeff Barnes wrote: From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support for things we desperately need: reflection, automatic memory management and callbacks. How about D? Also, consider Qt. It has all of the above. Qt makes it pretty easy for devs who started out with higher-level languages to become productive in C++. See, here is the problem. There appear to be about 500 languages which could be used for writing the core application and writing ways to extend it. It seems that someone with too much time on their hands is inventing a new language every damn day. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. But here are the key things: 1. Lilypond needs to be portable to run natively on all of the major platforms: Windows, Mac and Linux/BSD/etc. with as little re-coding as possible. While I'm sensitive to David's request to end the discussion for now, there are some misconceptions about Qt that need addressing. I wish David's response were part of this message so I could address clearly both, but I'll try to reconstruct his reasons and offer counterpoint constructively. First, Qt is cross-platform and runnable on the above platforms and others as well. 2. In order to have people writing the code, the languages used should be already in wide use so that developers don't have to learn a new language and install new APIs. Mature, well-understood languages will reduce the likelihood of introducing new bugs. While Qt APIs are required, no new language is required. With Scheme and the other extension strategies, both new API's and new languages are required. It becomes alphabet soup watching people toss the language of the moment into the discussion. I understand that recommendations like this have very large scope. I don't think Qt is a language of the moment, though. It is mature and has a very large developer base. David seemed to echo your sentiments a little differently. While not explicitly clear in his response, he seemed to relegate Qt to a UI framework. While it's true that Qt is a great UI framework, it has much more value than just in UI development. It's not my job or inclination to educate folks about the extent of Qt's frameworks, but saying it's a UI development API is like saying GNU is Emacs. I'm not sure he was being serious in adding Visual Basic to the mix, but whether or not he was serious, comparing VB to Qt is disingenuous and dismissive without a fair consideration. VB isn't cross platform. There are also license differences and Qt is on the right side of that comparison. I was a little surprised that someone with a GNU background like his would have made those remarks. Regards, Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
From: Tim Roberts Jeff Barnes wrote: While I'm sensitive to David's request to end the discussion for now, there are some misconceptions about Qt that need addressing. That's not entirely clear. I don't think starting from here is fair, Tim. You didn't quote enough context. The discussion was originally about the choice of Scheme as an extension language. Qt is clearly not an answer to that question. In addition, Qt is not just a library, it is a lifestyle. You would have to throw everything out and start over. It's also not clear to me that Qt is a net win in an application that has a console user interface. From the above paragraph snippet, everything except the first and last sentence should have been prefaced with IMO. But the last sentence, in particular, was a fair response to my post, so I should address it. The net win would be Qt's meta object system and the built in options for scripting: dynamic and generated script bindings. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. Refactoring for the exposed Lily api could be gradual in either case. Big gains could be realized fairly quickly though, IMO. First, Qt is cross-platform and runnable on the above platforms and others as well. It has the additional benefit of being enormous. Fair enough. Something to be considered. It's not clear to me that this is of itself a deal breaker, though, IMO. You're not saying the CLR is small, though are you? While Qt APIs are required, no new language is required. With Scheme and the other extension strategies, both new API's and new languages are required. In what way does Qt represent an extension strategy? Using C++ to extend Lily. With the benefit that there are readily available language bindings to popular languages. I don't think Qt is a language of the moment, though. Qt is not a language at all. It is a library. Then we agree? I'm not sure he was being serious in adding Visual Basic to the mix, but whether or not he was serious, comparing VB to Qt is disingenuous and dismissive without a fair consideration. VB isn't cross platform. There are also license differences and Qt is on the right side of that comparison. I was a little surprised that someone with a GNU background like his would have made those remarks. VB is, at least, a language, and an embeddable one at that. VB brings with it the .NET Common Language Runtime, which IS more or less directly comparable to Qt. It is cross-platform (via Mono), although not to the same degree that Qt is. If it would suit the platform, extensibility, and license requirements I'd consider using it. Would you stipulate that Mono is less mature than Qt? Would you agree that saying VB brings with it the .NET Common Language Runtime is overstating it a little? However, this debate is now taking a nasty side-trip into religion, and that isn't going to help anyone. It was not my intent to get religious. Please show me where I was religious about Qt and I will gladly recant. Regards, Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Appreciation / Financial support
From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca Hi David, Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with writing music rather than listening to it. In other words, composers who use Lilypond are a [very, very small] subset of a [very small] subset of all people. It sounds like it would be quite valuable to know the commonalities of this very very small very small group for positioning Lily and for future development direction. As for me, I like Lily because it sets my mind to the process of composition/arranging with the manual entry of notes. This process is mechanically more akin to the task of using pen and ink than the more visual or keyboard approaches to note entry. As I write, Lily forces me to consider music theory more directly. It also forces me to think about enharmonic considerations, meter and many other things. With the Lily domain specific language, there is a natural bridging between theoretical musical concepts and computer programming. The divide between the two isn't that large, BTW. I started my career as a musician and learned computer programming in my 30's. I've often remarked that music, especially arranging and composing, is very much like developing an application (only solo), with a well-known set of algorithms for melodic and harmonic construction. Regards, Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Multiple tensions in Chord Mode
From: Louis Guillaume If I may start with a bit of humble philosophy, when I see a flat 9 especially, I almost always conclude that the tonality will include a sharp 9 as well, simply because of the dissonance that would result from having the flat 9 competing against an unaltered 9. Not to mention the root, which is smunched up with those! My turn to offer in humility. I would almost never assume any other alteration or extension except what was explicitly in the chord symbol. Not to say that it could never happen, it just strikes me as being rare. This doesn't necessarily work the other way around. A sharp 9 chord to me would normally imply a normal 9 also, unless inspection of the melody or harmony suggests a flat 9 would be more appropriate, in which case I'll grumble that the arranger should have written a flat 9. But maybe [s]he doesn't want you anywhere near the flat nine :). At least for your part. We are talking chord symbols so there's expected interpretation. I think when tensions are explicitly described on a part, they are not subject to as much interpretation as if you were playing off a lead-sheet. In summary, IMHO: flat 9 = flat 9 and usually sharp 9 also sharp 9 = sharp 9 and usually natural 9 (or 2) I think that's accurate for the most part. Obviously there's a lot of interpretation involved with this kind of thing. Further alteration of the 9th is implicit in an -alt directive only (to me). But sharp 9 doesn't mean add2 (to me). If you want a flat 9 sharp 9 chord, consider using a flat 9 and leaving the sharp 9 implied. This is especially appropriate if the key signature implies a sharp 9 (C7 b9 in key of Db, Bb or Ab for example) To me you are making the case for an -alt chord. IMHO, this situation also arises around flat fifths -- a flat fifth would almost always cause me to assume a sharp fifth as well. I'm not so sure about that. Certainly there's no natural 5th (it's been explicitly flattened), but the 6th could certainly be natural. Consider the mode c d e f ges a bes. To me, there is no such thing as a flat 6. It's flat 13, and almost always that means -alt. The definition of -alt to me is altered 9th and flat 13. Although... I usually omit the 11th in an alt chord. Hmmm I may need to re-think. C7 b5 often implies a whole-tone scale (c d e ges aes bes c). However, I don't make this assumption about sharp 11 chords. I assume that sharp 11 chords are chosen to make the fourth tone of the mode be only a half step away from the perfect fifth, Lydian-style. Yes 7,#11 chords are almost certainly Lydian-flat-seven. Agreed, but most of the time, I would prefer to see the 13th with a #11. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: How to cancel voice so ties are right direction
Thanks for the replies, everyone.
David Kastrup wrote:
\relative c' takes a music expression as an argument, and in this case,
the argument is the parallel music ... .
Interesting. Does \voiceXXX take a music expression too? If so, can I set the
bounds of the expression with {}?
I don't see that you have a wrong tie direction. Take all the
parallel music out, and LilyPond will choose the same tie. If you want
to flip it up explicitly, probably the easiest way is writing ^~ instead
of ~.
I've found a general need to add \xxxNeutral after using \voices to get stems,
ties, tuplets, etc to line up correctly
(http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/learning/within_002dstaff-objects). It's
not clear to me what the bounds of \voiceXXX are.
If expression boundaries impact the state of the parser, it seems Lily is
adding a burden to the user by forcing the user to manage expression boundaries
without a consistent way to define the boundaries. At least, that's the
objection that's inside my noob head, anyway. Also, trying to fix the tie
problem sent me through the path of adding all sorts of things to the music
that made reading it more difficult.
I looked at the grammar at
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/lilypond-grammar. Where is
\voiceXXX defined?
Jeff
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
David Kastrup wrote: Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: I don't think that's necessarily applicable to Lily. The end product being distributed is paper (or perhaps a pdf file). I don't think the GPL extends to that, does it? Of course copyright extends to paper, but not to programmatic output. It would extend to embedded fonts, but IIRC, they are licensed differently. Or at least they would, if there were interest. If the use of the fonts were covered by LilyPond's license, that would pretty much kill using LilyPond for anything at a publishing house, wouldn't it? Or am I misunderstanding you? Does distributing a pdf of Lily's output potentially mean you have to make Lily's source, the .ly file, or any other artifact the user created using Lily available under GPL? What do I have to provide to satisfy the LilyPonds licensing requirements if I wanted to distribute sheet music I wrote using LilyPond to engrave? But most forward thinking publishing companies would give the source code back. After all, their core business isn't editLilyPond/edit, it's publishing. Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :) You don't want to help the competition. Perhaps with the passing of the old guard old ideas will die. It's not a matter of helping the competition, because the real competition is over content. Open standards and tools help focus attention on the business of publishing content and less on the tools. A company wouldn't have to release its \tweaks, \overrides, etc. and therefore still keep the proprietary look of its published music. Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
How to cancel voice so ties are right direction
This snippet illustrates a problem I'm having. The tie on the g is in the wrong
direction after I've finished with the voice split. How do I get the correct
tie direction? It looks like the \voices are still in scope wrt ties.
Also, why did I lose the \relative c' after the voice split?
\score {
\new Staff {
\relative c'
{
\voiceOne
g'2
} \\ {
\voiceTwo
c,2
}
g' c'4 ~ g' b
}
\layout { }
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Do I send crash reports to this list?___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Lilypond segfaults on Ubuntu, doesn't compile music on Mac
The following music doesn't compile on the mac and causes a segfault on Linux.
Environments:
Mac OSX Lion
Ubuntu 12.04
LilyPond Versions
2.14.2-1 (mac)
2.14.2-2 (ubu from apt-get)
Command from ubu:
jbarnes@jbarnes-OptiPlex-780:~/mac/Documents/apc/music$ lilypond
WhenILookIntoYourHoliness.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.14.2
Processing `WhenILookIntoYourHoliness.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...
Interpreting music... [8][16][24][32]Segmentation fault (core dumped)
There was no core file in the directory. Ubuntu sent a crash report yesterday.
Notes:
1) There is no error message when compiling (Cmd+R) on the mac. It silently
fails.
2) If you uncomment out the lines indicated and comment out the lines following
it will compile (2 places in the file).
3) if you remove the music after the problem areas, keeping the voice structure
intact, it will compile.
Any help appreciated.
Jeff
\version 2.14.2
pianoRH = \relative c''' {
\time 4/4
\key d \major
\new Voice {
\voiceOne
a8 a a a a4. a8
a fis b g4. ~ b g4 fis8 g
a a a d, fis a, a d,4. b8
% uncomment the following line and comment out the next
% d, b a fis2 d b g e4 fis cis8 g dis
r8 cis ais16 e d fis, d, gis eis b a fis d b2
a a a a a4 a8 a
a fis cis b g d ~ b g d a16 a g d g,4 fis cis fis,
r4 \times 8/7 { dis32 e g b d c b } \times 8/7 { gis a c e g fis e }
\times 8/7 { dis e g b d c b }
\times 8/7 { a g fis e d c b } \times 8/7 { a g fis e d cis b } a4
fis'' dis b fis8 g e c g
a a a a a4. a a,8
a fis d a b g e b4. r4 fis cis ais fis8 g ees bes g
a fis d a a e cis a a fis d a fis \times 2/3 { a e cis a4 a
fis d a b b, }
d, g,8 b d, g b, fis16 g a fis dis8 g e c fis dis b g e c
a a a a a4 a8 a
a fis d a b g d b4 a8 g d g,4 a fis d a
g b,8 fis a, e g,4 e c aes g2
e d b g
\times 2/3 { a fis d a4 b gis e b cis ais fis cis }
r4 d' g,16 b d, b d, g b, g b, d g, d g, b d, b d, g
b, g b,16 a
b g d2 \times 2/3 { cis ais fis cis4 d d, e e, }
a, e cis2 ~ a e cis8 fis a e d4
b d,2.. fis dis cis ais8
\times 2/3 { g e d b4 e g, fis a, } g b,2
r4 e8 e d g,4 e a,
fis2 g
a \times 2/3 { a e cis a4 b b, cis cis, }
{
d b g d1
} \\ {
\voiceOne
r8. d' g, d16 d g, d8. b d, b16 b d, b8. g b, g16 g b,
g8 fis fis,
}
g d g,2 \times 2/3 { cis, ais fis cis4 d e }
a,2 fis cis fis,4. e8
d2.. fis8
\times 2/3 { g b,4 e g, fis a, } g b,2
r4 e8 e d b g4 cis
\change Staff = bss
d fis,8 a d, d fis, fis a, d fis, fis a, \change Staff =
trbl a d, d fis,
fis a,2. fis' cis fis,4
}
\new Voice {
\voiceTwo
e,, cis a1
d b2. cis ais fisis4
e cis a4 s2.
% uncomment the following line and comment out the next
% s2. ais, fisis4
d b a fis ais, fisis4
fis' e cis a2. fis d a8 e cis a
s1
e b e,1
s1
fis' d a2.. s8
s1
s
s1
fis, d a8 fis d a fis d a e cis a fis d a4 e cis a8 fis d a
s1
s
s
{
d' a fis d
} \\ {
s4 b16 g g d d b b g g d d8
}
s1
s
s
s
s
e'8 cis d e d b cis d16 e
fis2 s2
s1
s
s
cis8 b bes a gis2
}
}
pianoLH = \relative c' {
\tempo 4 = 120
\time 4/4
\key d \major
d,,4 fis' a,2.
g,16 b d e \times 4/6 { fis e d cis b a } \times 4/6 { g fis e d cis b } a16
b f' ees
d4 fis' a,2.
g,4 ~ g16 fis e d c4 a
a' d,2 fis' a,
g,16 d' e fis g b,4 b, e, a d,
g c,2 b,
a2. fis''' cis g4
d,, fis' a,2.
g,4 g' b,2 g a,4
d,2 fis' a,2
g,4 g' b, g a,2
d,8 a' fis' a, d, a' fis'4
g,8 d' g4 b, e, a d,
g c,2 bes,
a2
fis'
g g,1
a a,2 g' a,
a fis,2. ais cis,4
\times 4/6 {b,,16 fis' b cis16 d cis } \times 4/6 { b fis d b fis d } b2
b'' e,2 g' e,4 a fis,
b g,2 b,8 a16 b cis4
fis d2 g e,
{
\voiceOne
a16 g fis e d a fis e d2
\change Staff = trbl
\voiceTwo
s8. g'' d b16 g d b8. d b g16 d b g8. b g d16 b g d4
} \\ {
fis,2 s2
g1
}
g' e,2 g a,4 g,
fis2 ais
b b,
e'1
a,
d, ~
d2 r4 fis'' cis ais
}
\score {
\new PianoStaff
\set PianoStaff.instrumentName = #Piano
\new Staff = trbl { \pianoRH }
\new Staff = bss { \clef bass \pianoLH }
\midi { }
\layout { }
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. Man, I feel ya. I started playing around with LilyPond recently. I like it. As someone who uses a lot of open source software, though, only a few projects have won a donation of my hard-earned bucks. I don't want to discourage you, but I think depending on individual users to support you is not going to work out the way you want. If this upsets you, read the GPL again. Sorry for being so curt and I'll probably get flamed for it, because LilyPond is so highly-regarded (and rightly so). Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors? I see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation donates developers to projects the company have an interest in. As in, 1) convince a large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver, 2) get hired by them and 3) bingo, your dream job. There are risks. The project could fork, the corporation may have different goals than yours, etc. I'm just saying that if the LilyPond project doesn't support you, don't go down with it. I'm probably saying a lot of crude things that offend people. I have a limited knowledge of LilyPond's history and culture. I'm sorry if I offend. I'm just a straight-shooter, that's all (and a newbie to this list). Best regards, Jeff - Original Message - From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org To: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:53 PM Subject: Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se writes: When donating, is there any mechanism in place by which funds will be donated only if some target level is reached by all donations together? I'm speculating people might be more comfortable when they know that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond full time. In my opinion, the cap thing does exactly that. Besides, i think the core of the problems lies elsewhere: 1) most of the people thinks this doesn't concern them 2) many people think i cannot afford / i'm not comfortable with donating 10 euro/month, so i won't donate anything. This is really sad; Lily has hundreds (thousands?) of users and if they donated 1 euro each month (doesn't this sound funny concerning how powerful LilyPond is?) it would make a big difference. It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. The talk in Chemnitz was disturbing in that respect. I was rather straight about the need to finance my further contribution to LilyPond, and there was no shortage of listeners coming to me after the talk, letting some LilyPond problem getting solved by me (so it was clear that they were actually using LilyPond on a regular basis), and afterwards wishing me with somewhat shifty eyes most sincerely good luck in my quest for funding, and that it would be a real shame if I were not successful with it. I did not win any funders there. I suppose that in real life, I act too polite and understanding to actually be successful at what more or less amounts to rubbing people's noses in their inconsistent expectations. Of course, it does not win me any favors with victims of such behavior from me in mailing lists, but there are bystanders who may get into thinking. I really wish I knew how to deal with that sort of cognitive dissonance more gracefully, but grace has never really been my strong suit. But then check LilyPond's issue database for grace, and you'll see that this is par for the course. -- David Kastrup ___ 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: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail twice. Point taken. Won't happen again. Please read URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney. Yeah, I've read that before. Just curious. If there wasn't a free as in beer version of a GPL software package, wouldn't one logically expect a fork? How does GNU address that? I'm just guessing, but there are a limited number of people who have the knowledge and skills to maintain a fork. That argument, it seems to me has limited traction, though. Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
I suppose the situation might be as follows: source code is freely available (on website, github or whatever), but the binaries are not. Anyone tech-savvy enough to serve himself doesn't have to pay, but simple users do have. I think that if the price was low (say, 5$) nobody might be interested in forking it. All of the donations I've made to open source projects have been in the $25 range. And actually, releasing source for free but binaries for fee makes some sense. Agreed. Especially on platforms where build environments aren't free or installed. Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Tim McNamara wrote; On May 24, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Barnes wrote: Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors? I see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation donates developers to projects the company have an interest in. Hmm. OpenOffice for example?* Would you stipulate that there are successful GPL projects involving corporate sponsors? As in, 1) convince a large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver, 2) get hired by them and 3) bingo, your dream job. There are risks. The project could fork, the corporation may have different goals than yours, etc. Those are not risks. They are guarantees. And most assuredly few corporate sponsors would permit the project to be published under the GPL. The notion of owing intellectual property has become so very deeply ingrained in corporate culture around the world that the GPL is a dealbreaker. My company, a large cable provider in the US, uses a lot of GPL code in its distributed products. It also donates developer time to many of those projects. The notion of users having freedom is anathema to most. That may be true of some, perhaps most as you put it. But I think the deal breaker is more along the lines of losing some perceived competitive advantage by having to give back optimizations or improvements to the codebase. I don't think that's necessarily applicable to Lily. The end product being distributed is paper (or perhaps a pdf file). I don't think the GPL extends to that, does it? One doesn't need to make Lily source code notices on every piece of music they distribute engraved with LilyPond, do they? Also, do I understand correctly that a company could make changes to the source code and use it without giving it back? They probably should to be good citizens, but are they required to do so if they don't distribute LilyPond according to GPL? But most forward thinking publishing companies would give the source code back. After all, their core business isn't LilyPad, it's publishing. Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :) Regards, Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Syntax error
Hmmm, can't spot anything missing at the moment. Here's the entire test file. http://pastebin.com/pSu6Asge Hi Alex! Another noob here... Take a look at line 133. Looks like you're missing a closing quote. Regards, Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
16-channel limit with larger scores
I apologize if this question has been asked before. I want to write a full score for big band and somehow overcome the 15 staff limit for midi playback. If I could merge the alto and tenor staves from 4 to 1, and do the same for trumpets and bones, I would have few enough staves for midi output to work. Is there some utility to combine staves for midi playback? Regards, Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
