Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
On 10/29, Urs Liska wrote: > Well, the LSR website explicitly states that it's contents is in the > public domain. If I read correctly your email this would have to be > considered illegal, especially given that many snippets there are > uploaded not by their original authors but by someone who uses the > results of a mailing list discussion Like Andrew B says, it would probably take an international copyright lawyer to really sort out the legal status of the LSR. Saying that something is public domain doesn't just make it so. My understanding is that unless the copyright has expired or the work has otherwise entered the public domain, all rights are exclusively reserved until the author gives up those right. Unless LSR contributors agree to this at some point during the upload process, they reserve all rights to their code. Even if contributors are asked to release their work into the "public domain", that would be legally ambiguous. The purpose of CC0 is to resolve this ambiguity. If the intent is public domain-like status, contributors should be asked to release their work under CC0. Even then, if you are correct that many snippets were uploaded by someone other than the original author, then the uploaders don't even have the power to release the code under CC0 without permission from the author. > Is there anything that should be done about the LSR? Clarifying the unclear licensing terms retroactively would likely be such a large task that it is probably not worth attempting unless legal problems are likely to arise in practice, and since I'm sure that most snippet authors intended for their code to be free, I doubt that this will happen. Moving forward though, it would probably be good to ensure that for similar projects (such as OLL's snippets) contributions are clearly under free licenses (ideally GPL-compatible[1] ones, so that the snippets can be freely combined with Lilypond and/or Frescobaldi). [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ; -)]
Dick Seabrook writes: > Perhaps we need a "graffiti law" -- that anything written in a public place > or on > someone else's property becomes the property of the public, or owner > respectively. > Otherwise what right do owners have to clean graffiti off their buildings? You are confusing ownership of the medium with copyright over the content. Cleaning graffiti off a building is exercising control over the medium in your possession. Selling postcards of your building prominently featuring the graffiti is creating copies of the content: that would be problematic since it is solely the privilege of the copyright holder. Breaking the wall into pieces of graffiti you sell is "first sale": lawfully disposing of the medium containing the "legally" acquired authorized copy (the author chose to put it there, and you did not commit any illegal act for getting it there I assume, like holding a gun to their head) in your possession. -- David Kastrup
Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]
Yes, ... international copyright lawyer required for even such a simple thing. In many cases it may be better to put nothing - as the GNU lists do - and let national law deal with problems and interpretation. Whatever you put, some jurisdiction somewhere will find it to be in error, and that just causes headaches. But I really don't think there is an issue with this list. The topic only arose due to what I consider strange comments about the GPL licence for software (not music). Interestingly, Google states: https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours. And then they go on to point out the can make derivative works and do what they pretty well much like with your content in the next paragraph, exactly as you say. Andrew On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 22:37, N. Andrew Walsh wrote: > though I generally loathe such usage terms, wouldn't some clause in the > list's ToS to the effect that use of the list grants some nonexclusive but > unrestricted right to copy/use that material alleviate these concerns? > Those kinds of clauses are part of every online email service, for example > (since the servers make multiple copies of your message as the send/store > it), and most online services. >
Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]
Perhaps we need a "graffiti law" -- that anything written in a public place or on someone else's property becomes the property of the public, or owner respectively. Otherwise what right do owners have to clean graffiti off their buildings? Dick S. On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:06 AM Andrew Bernard wrote: > You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic. > > On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to > support GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous > list with 100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in > that project revealed that, surprising to me, it appears to be the legal > consensus that the poster of the email owns the post and its material in a > strong sense, and posts are not the property of the list or the list > owner,. and that duplicating posts for archival purposes can therefore be > in violation of various parts of copyright and intellectual property law, > and the whole business is a nightmare. Going against this however is the > norm that I think most members of mailing lists like my harpsichord list > and this lilypond list feel that their posts become 'public domain', > meaning not subject to copyright, as the intention generally is to share > and discuss. > > I am in Australia, and our copyright/IP law is different to the US, and to > Europe, so I cant really comment any more. But this appears to be an > infinitely deep rabbit burrow to explore. > > Looking at the spirit of sharing, I feel pretty sure that people who > contribute to openlilylib, and to LSR, and who post code snippets and > solutions here on this list intend these works to be shared and used by > all, despite what the letter of the (internationally varying) law may be. > > > Andrew > > -- Dick Seabrook Anne Arundel Community College http://vader.aacc.edu/~rhs Speed the Net!
Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]
though I generally loathe such usage terms, wouldn't some clause in the list's ToS to the effect that use of the list grants some nonexclusive but unrestricted right to copy/use that material alleviate these concerns? Those kinds of clauses are part of every online email service, for example (since the servers make multiple copies of your message as the send/store it), and most online services. as usual, ianal, etc etc. Cheers, A On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:05 AM Andrew Bernard wrote: > You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic. > > On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to > support GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous > list with 100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in > that project revealed that, surprising to me, it appears to be the legal > consensus that the poster of the email owns the post and its material in a > strong sense, and posts are not the property of the list or the list > owner,. and that duplicating posts for archival purposes can therefore be > in violation of various parts of copyright and intellectual property law, > and the whole business is a nightmare. Going against this however is the > norm that I think most members of mailing lists like my harpsichord list > and this lilypond list feel that their posts become 'public domain', > meaning not subject to copyright, as the intention generally is to share > and discuss. > > I am in Australia, and our copyright/IP law is different to the US, and to > Europe, so I cant really comment any more. But this appears to be an > infinitely deep rabbit burrow to explore. > > Looking at the spirit of sharing, I feel pretty sure that people who > contribute to openlilylib, and to LSR, and who post code snippets and > solutions here on this list intend these works to be shared and used by > all, despite what the letter of the (internationally varying) law may be. > > > Andrew > >
Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)]
You need an international copyright lawyer. This is a fraught topic. On list email, I recently set up a big sophisticated mail server to support GNU Mailman 3 mailing lists, and moved an archive from a previous list with 100,000 posts across. Extensive discussion with my colleagues in that project revealed that, surprising to me, it appears to be the legal consensus that the poster of the email owns the post and its material in a strong sense, and posts are not the property of the list or the list owner,. and that duplicating posts for archival purposes can therefore be in violation of various parts of copyright and intellectual property law, and the whole business is a nightmare. Going against this however is the norm that I think most members of mailing lists like my harpsichord list and this lilypond list feel that their posts become 'public domain', meaning not subject to copyright, as the intention generally is to share and discuss. I am in Australia, and our copyright/IP law is different to the US, and to Europe, so I cant really comment any more. But this appears to be an infinitely deep rabbit burrow to explore. Looking at the spirit of sharing, I feel pretty sure that people who contribute to openlilylib, and to LSR, and who post code snippets and solutions here on this list intend these works to be shared and used by all, despite what the letter of the (internationally varying) law may be. Andrew
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Am 29. Oktober 2019 02:57:30 MEZ schrieb ma...@masonhock.com: >On 10/28, Klaus Blum wrote: >> AFAIK, the public domain licence also applies to anything published >on >> the LY mailing list. I hope that I'm not wrong as I don't intend to >> "steal" other people's code... > >I don't think that list users agree to a CLA or otherwise give anyone >else the ability to decide how any code they share is licensed, so >unless the author of a code snippet explicitly releases it under a free >license, or the snippet is too trivial to be copyrightable, then in >most >jurisdictions the code snippet probably is non-free. Most list users >probably *intend* for the code they share to be free, so they are >unlikely to attempt to enforce any copyright restrictions, but in the >177 countries who signed the Berne Convention they legally reserve all >rights to the code. > >Most LSR snippets are free probably non-free as well. "Public domain" >is ambiguous in the context of works whose copyright restrictions have >not expired (or are not public domain from some other reason, such as >being published by the US government). The closest you can get to >"releasing" your otherwise-copyrighted work into the public domain in >all jurisdictions is to explicitly apply CC0[1] to your work. Some LSR >snippets might include a free license statement, and some are shared by >the author elsewhere under a free license, but for the rest, the legal >status will vary by jurisdiction. Since many contributions are >anonymous, they could be considered orphan works.[2] In some countries >it is legal to use orphan works, but in many they are in limbo: you >can't use them without permission, but there's no one to get permission >from. Like with the list though, I'm sure that most contributors to >the >LSR intended for their code to be free and are unlikely to attempt to >enforce any copyright restrictions. Well, the LSR website explicitly states that it's contents is in the public domain. If I read correctly your email this would have to be considered illegal, especially given that many snippets there are uploaded not by their original authors but by someone who uses the results of a mailing list discussion Is there anything that should be done about the LSR? Urs > >[1] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ > >[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_work -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
On 10/28, Klaus Blum wrote: > AFAIK, the public domain licence also applies to anything published on > the LY mailing list. I hope that I'm not wrong as I don't intend to > "steal" other people's code... I don't think that list users agree to a CLA or otherwise give anyone else the ability to decide how any code they share is licensed, so unless the author of a code snippet explicitly releases it under a free license, or the snippet is too trivial to be copyrightable, then in most jurisdictions the code snippet probably is non-free. Most list users probably *intend* for the code they share to be free, so they are unlikely to attempt to enforce any copyright restrictions, but in the 177 countries who signed the Berne Convention they legally reserve all rights to the code. Most LSR snippets are free probably non-free as well. "Public domain" is ambiguous in the context of works whose copyright restrictions have not expired (or are not public domain from some other reason, such as being published by the US government). The closest you can get to "releasing" your otherwise-copyrighted work into the public domain in all jurisdictions is to explicitly apply CC0[1] to your work. Some LSR snippets might include a free license statement, and some are shared by the author elsewhere under a free license, but for the rest, the legal status will vary by jurisdiction. Since many contributions are anonymous, they could be considered orphan works.[2] In some countries it is legal to use orphan works, but in many they are in limbo: you can't use them without permission, but there's no one to get permission from. Like with the list though, I'm sure that most contributors to the LSR intended for their code to be free and are unlikely to attempt to enforce any copyright restrictions. [1] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_work signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Hi everybody, seems like I've missed an interesting discussion today... :) Karsten Reincke-2 wrote > I would like to discuss / learn, how > his function fExtend works. Or does anyone know, how this methods > works? That fExtend function uses code that I've found in another thread on the mailing list, hence the two references at the beginning of the snippet code: % http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-12/msg00123.html % http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user%40gnu.org/msg60732.html That means, I don't understand it entirely by myself. ;-) AFAIK, the public domain licence also applies to anything published on the LY mailing list. I hope that I'm not wrong as I don't intend to "steal" other people's code... Cheers, Klaus -- Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
On 10/28, Karsten Reincke wrote: > The analysis package is a challenge for me: > > a) It is licensed under GPL. I think this is not appropriate for > music. Sure, the GPL is intended for software. For music, a CC license would be more appropriate. The analysis package is pretty clearly software, though. CC BY-SA-4.0 is one-way-compatible with GPLv3, so if for some reason there is a need to combine the code with a substantial amount of music, I guess the music could be licensed under CC BY-SA-4.0 with the code remaining under the GPL. At first glance though, the only music it appears to contain are some brief fragments in the usage examples, which are probably too trivial to be worth licensing differently from the code. > In a few days I will write a little article about this topic. But > without changing that license I cannot contribute to it. I don't see why not, unless you want to create a proprietary derivative of the result or hope that someone else will, in which case the GPL is working as intended. > b) I did not find an example, which can be downloaded and be compiled > without additional 'installation steps'. And unfortunately, also the > home page of openlilylib is forthe moment more a frame than an > information source. Where can I get such a tutorial? Yes, the website is empty, but there is a lot of information in the Github repositories[1] and their wikis. I suggest starting here.[2] Mason [1] https://github.com/openlilylib/ [2] https://github.com/openlilylib/oll-core/wiki signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Urs Liska writes: > Am 29. Oktober 2019 00:04:06 MEZ schrieb David Kastrup : >>Andrew Bernard writes: >> >>> I am finding this thread weird, sorry. There's a huge amount of help >>in the >>> archives of this list in how to install and run openlilylib. A quick >>search >>> would show that. It's a sort of FAQ. >>> >>> Also, lilypond is GPL, so does the following mean you are therefore >>not >>> able to even use the program Karsten? >>> >>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 06:20, Karsten Reincke >>wrote: >>> a) It is licensed under GPL. I think this is not appropriate for >>music. In a few days I will write a little article about this topic. But without changing that license I cannot contribute to it. I fail to understand this. How can an open source licence not be appropriate for music? >> >>Do you really want to force everybody giving sheet music to somebody >>else to accompany it with a written offer to the LilyPond source code? >>Or otherwise be prohibited from distribution? >> >>That's not really practical for most choir directors. > > This starts to get out of hands. The issue is of course not licensing > music under the GPL. But that for some reason GPL is said to be > unsuitable for a music-related *tool* like openLilyLib. Sorry, I thought this was about sheet music source code. -- David Kastrup
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Am 29. Oktober 2019 00:04:06 MEZ schrieb David Kastrup : >Andrew Bernard writes: > >> I am finding this thread weird, sorry. There's a huge amount of help >in the >> archives of this list in how to install and run openlilylib. A quick >search >> would show that. It's a sort of FAQ. >> >> Also, lilypond is GPL, so does the following mean you are therefore >not >> able to even use the program Karsten? >> >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 06:20, Karsten Reincke >wrote: >> >>> >>> a) It is licensed under GPL. I think this is not appropriate for >music. >>> In a few days I will write a little article about this topic. But >>> without changing that license I cannot contribute to it. >>> >>> I fail to understand this. How can an open source licence not be >>> appropriate for music? > >Do you really want to force everybody giving sheet music to somebody >else to accompany it with a written offer to the LilyPond source code? >Or otherwise be prohibited from distribution? > >That's not really practical for most choir directors. This starts to get out of hands. The issue is of course not licensing music under the GPL. But that for some reason GPL is said to be unsuitable for a music-related *tool* like openLilyLib. Urs -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Am 28. Oktober 2019 19:06:46 MEZ schrieb Karsten Reincke : >Dear Urs, dear Friends > >In general, I've started the adoption of LSR snippet 967 in a >development branch of my harmonyli lib ( >https://github.com/kreincke/harmonyli/tree/develop). This snippet >isvery well designed and written. > >[...] >> Klaus Blum is listed in that LSR snippet as the author, and he >> happens to be the maintainer of the anaLYsis package, BTW. > >Does anyone has his mail address? I would like to discuss / learn, how >his function fExtend works. Or does anyone know, how this methods >works? What exactly do you mean? AFAICT that snippet is not much more complicated than the code in your package. > > >> The anaLYsis package has pretty sophisticated modules for frames and >> arrows, but the "harmony" module has only been created as a stub, >> storing some stuff from that mailing list thread for future reference >> (in the `harmony-initial` branch). > >The analysis package is a challenge for me: > >a) It is licensed under GPL. I think this is not appropriate for music. >In a few days I will write a little article about this topic. But >without changing that license I cannot contribute to it. I have to second Andrew's question: why on earth would a package that is licensed the same as LilyPond be something one can't contribute to? If you have specific reasons not to do so you should at least mention them for us to see. > >b) I did not find an example, which can be downloaded and be compiled >without additional 'installation steps'. Well, that's the nature of packages and extension infrastructures. > And unfortunately, also the >home page of openlilylib is forthe moment more a frame than an >information source. This is unfortunately true. > Where can I get such a tutorial? https://github.com/openlilylib/oll-core/wiki should get you going. > >> >> I would love to see that module be functional, especially since I >> urgently need a solution to update a bunch of music examples in a >> large document, but I haven't found the time to look into it yet. So >> I'd be more than willing to collaborate on that. >I think we won't need much time to modify the one source file into a >lib. >[...] > >> >> As I wrote in a previous reply such a package will eventually have to >> support multiple (if not arbitrary) styles of formatting analysis >> symbols. However, that doesn't mean that one has to get everything >> right at once. It is sufficient to have such extensibility and >> flexibility in mind right from the start. >Do you have any other needs I should consider? I personally do not, but there are many different schools in that area, and a package should not just support one of them. This has to be reflected in the inner working, the flexibility and even the naming of the components. The first thing to be done would be a collectoon of requirements, with feedback from as wide a community as possible. Urs > >with best regards Karsten -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Andrew Bernard writes: > I am finding this thread weird, sorry. There's a huge amount of help in the > archives of this list in how to install and run openlilylib. A quick search > would show that. It's a sort of FAQ. > > Also, lilypond is GPL, so does the following mean you are therefore not > able to even use the program Karsten? > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 06:20, Karsten Reincke wrote: > >> >> a) It is licensed under GPL. I think this is not appropriate for music. >> In a few days I will write a little article about this topic. But >> without changing that license I cannot contribute to it. >> >> I fail to understand this. How can an open source licence not be >> appropriate for music? Do you really want to force everybody giving sheet music to somebody else to accompany it with a written offer to the LilyPond source code? Or otherwise be prohibited from distribution? That's not really practical for most choir directors. -- David Kastrup
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
I am finding this thread weird, sorry. There's a huge amount of help in the archives of this list in how to install and run openlilylib. A quick search would show that. It's a sort of FAQ. Also, lilypond is GPL, so does the following mean you are therefore not able to even use the program Karsten? On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 06:20, Karsten Reincke wrote: > > a) It is licensed under GPL. I think this is not appropriate for music. > In a few days I will write a little article about this topic. But > without changing that license I cannot contribute to it. > > I fail to understand this. How can an open source licence not be appropriate for music? I don't think the lilypond licence is going to be changed in the present or near future as lilypond is a GNU open source project. The Documentation is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Do you think this is inappropriate also? I'd be happy to help out with answers to questions but if your fundamental position about the whole project is like this it does really not seem that installation matters until you are comfortable with what lilypond is, open source software. Or are you trying to make a commercial analysis product using lilypond, hence your licence issues? Andrew
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Dear Urs, dear Friends In general, I've started the adoption of LSR snippet 967 in a development branch of my harmonyli lib ( https://github.com/kreincke/harmonyli/tree/develop). This snippet isvery well designed and written. [...] > Klaus Blum is listed in that LSR snippet as the author, and he > happens to be the maintainer of the anaLYsis package, BTW. Does anyone has his mail address? I would like to discuss / learn, how his function fExtend works. Or does anyone know, how this methods works? > The anaLYsis package has pretty sophisticated modules for frames and > arrows, but the "harmony" module has only been created as a stub, > storing some stuff from that mailing list thread for future reference > (in the `harmony-initial` branch). The analysis package is a challenge for me: a) It is licensed under GPL. I think this is not appropriate for music. In a few days I will write a little article about this topic. But without changing that license I cannot contribute to it. b) I did not find an example, which can be downloaded and be compiled without additional 'installation steps'. And unfortunately, also the home page of openlilylib is forthe moment more a frame than an information source. Where can I get such a tutorial? > > I would love to see that module be functional, especially since I > urgently need a solution to update a bunch of music examples in a > large document, but I haven't found the time to look into it yet. So > I'd be more than willing to collaborate on that. I think we won't need much time to modify the one source file into a lib. [...] > > As I wrote in a previous reply such a package will eventually have to > support multiple (if not arbitrary) styles of formatting analysis > symbols. However, that doesn't mean that one has to get everything > right at once. It is sufficient to have such extensibility and > flexibility in mind right from the start. Do you have any other needs I should consider? with best regards Karsten
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
> Am 2019-10-28 um 00:52 schrieb Urs Liska :
>
>> It's "public domain"
>> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/html/whatsthis.html
>>
>> Maybe LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one.
>> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
>
> I've read that there are jurisdictions where there isn't even a concept like
> "public domain". There you have an absolute copyright to what you create, and
> not even you yourself can waive that copyright in the sense of "no copyright"
> - you can just provide free licences to allow access.
E.g. Germany and AFAIK most of Europe.
There *is* a concept of "public domain" ("gemeinfrei" in German), but it’s only
for stuff that is "out of copyright", you can’t *put* anything in public domain.
But of course you can *use* public domain stuff from other jurisdictions.
A new license for LSR would only apply to new code, you can’t put existing,
published code under a new license if you aren’t the sole author.
Greetlings, Hraban
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
https://www.fiee.net
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
28. Oktober 2019 00:44, "Thomas Morley" schrieb: > Am Mo., 28. Okt. 2019 um 00:22 Uhr schrieb Karsten Reincke > : > >> BUT THERE IS A LICENSE QUESTION (very important in the area of free >> software!) The example shown if you click on the graphik of >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=967 does not contain any license >> information. Does anyone know the author? Does any (provable) know, >> whether I may adopt this solution into 'my' library? (Its results are >> much better then mine!) > > It's "public domain" > http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/html/whatsthis.html > > Maybe LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one. > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain I've read that there are jurisdictions where there isn't even a concept like "public domain". There you have an absolute copyright to what you create, and not even you yourself can waive that copyright in the sense of "no copyright" - you can just provide free licences to allow access. Best Urs > > Cheers, > Harm
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
28. Oktober 2019 00:21, "Karsten Reincke" schrieb: > Dear Urs; > > Many thanks for this quick and exhaustive answer! Let me briefly > answer: > > 1) As long as lilypond-book has to be called at first and replaces the > lilypond code in the LaTeX files by a section including the > corresponding picture, none LaTeX code can be combined with the > Lilypond code. And hence, the LaTeX package harmony cannot be used. > OK, that's true and does not change when using lyluatex (which is a superset of lilypond-book with the (significant) advantage that it directly compiles (and caches) LilyPond code along with the LaTeX run, so there's no need for the intermediate file). When you want to have the analysis symbol aligned to the score then there's a LilyPond solution needed. > 2) But there is no need to break up this handling! I followed your > first proposal and read the respective email thread. From the viewpoint > of the expresivity, http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=967 (mentioned > in the first solution) is exactly what I've looked for (and did not > find). Unfortunately, the code is not a 'library'. S, the task seems to > be to modify this version. That's the general design of the LSR. Some people prefer that approach (with straightforward copy&paste) while others prefer a library approach. I belong to the latter and have for that reason invented openLilyLib as a LilyPond extension and package management framework. > > BUT THERE IS A LICENSE QUESTION (very important in the area of free > software!) The example shown if you click on the graphik of > http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=967 does not contain any license > information. Does anyone know the author? Does any (provable) know, > whether I may adopt this solution into 'my' library? (Its results are > much better then mine!) http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/html/whatsthis.html states that whatever is available through the LSR is "public domain", so you can - if you want - simply copy that snippet to your personal library and do with it whatever you want. However ... > > 3) The next question is indeed, whether this result shall be integrated > or is already integrated into the openlilylib. I will check this before > I do the next step. ... no, it isn't yet. The anaLYsis package has pretty sophisticated modules for frames and arrows, but the "harmony" module has only been created as a stub, storing some stuff from that mailing list thread for future reference (in the `harmony-initial` branch). Klaus Blum is listed in that LSR snippet as the author, and he happens to be the maintainer of the anaLYsis package, BTW. I would love to see that module be functional, especially since I urgently need a solution to update a bunch of music examples in a large document, but I haven't found the time to look into it yet. So I'd be more than willing to collaborate on that. As I wrote in a previous reply such a package will eventually have to support multiple (if not arbitrary) styles of formatting analysis symbols. However, that doesn't mean that one has to get everything right at once. It is sufficient to have such extensibility and flexibility in mind right from the start. Best Urs > > with best regards Karsten > > On Sun, 2019-10-27 at 22:39 +, Urs Liska wrote: > >> Oops, forgot to CC the list. >> >> But one more remark: You may have a look at the thread starting with >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-04/msg00335.html and >> there especially the ZIP >> archive attached to >> https://lists.gnu.o >> rg/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-04/msg00351.html which gives two >> really beautiful LilyPond renderings. >> >> Urs >> >> 27. Oktober 2019 21:48, "Urs Liska" schrieb: >> >> Hi Karsten, >> >> I will have a closer look into this ASAP. >> But in the meantime it may be rewarding for you to have a look at >> the http://ctan.org/pkg/lyluatex >> package. >> >> In addition I would encourage you to consider integrating your >> efforts with >> https://github.com/openlilylib/analysis where we even have a stub >> for a harmony module. >> One caveat though: a "perfect" tool for musicologists will have to >> support not only one style of >> analysis symbols. >> Regarding musicological use cases you might want to also have a >> look at >> https://github.com/openlilylib/scholarly, >> https://github.com/uliska/lyluatexmp and >> https://github.com/uliska/lycritrprt (although the last two are >> pretty preliminary). Maybe also >> https://github.com/uliska/lilyglyphs >> >> Best >> Urs >> >> Am 27. Oktober 2019 17:31:28 MEZ schrieb Karsten Reincke < >> k.rein...@fodina.de>: >> >>> Dear Friends; >>> >>> Musicologists need more than writing pure music scores. They must >>> be >>> able to embed the score of music samples into their scientific >>> texts. >>> And they must be able to integrate the symbols of the functional >>> harmony theory into the score of their music samples. >>> >>> For using Lilypond with LaTeX there
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Am Mo., 28. Okt. 2019 um 00:22 Uhr schrieb Karsten Reincke : > BUT THERE IS A LICENSE QUESTION (very important in the area of free > software!) The example shown if you click on the graphik of > http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=967 does not contain any license > information. Does anyone know the author? Does any (provable) know, > whether I may adopt this solution into 'my' library? (Its results are > much better then mine!) It's "public domain" http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/html/whatsthis.html Maybe LSR should better use GPL 3, not this deprecated one. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ Cheers, Harm
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Dear Urs; Many thanks for this quick and exhaustive answer! Let me briefly answer: 1) As long as lilypond-book has to be called at first and replaces the lilypond code in the LaTeX files by a section including the corresponding picture, none LaTeX code can be combined with the Lilypond code. And hence, the LaTeX package harmony cannot be used. 2) But there is no need to break up this handling! I followed your first proposal and read the respective email thread. From the viewpoint of the expresivity, http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=967 (mentioned in the first solution) is exactly what I've looked for (and did not find). Unfortunately, the code is not a 'library'. S, the task seems to be to modify this version. BUT THERE IS A LICENSE QUESTION (very important in the area of free software!) The example shown if you click on the graphik of http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=967 does not contain any license information. Does anyone know the author? Does any (provable) know, whether I may adopt this solution into 'my' library? (Its results are much better then mine!) 3) The next question is indeed, whether this result shall be integrated or is already integrated into the openlilylib. I will check this before I do the next step. with best regards Karsten On Sun, 2019-10-27 at 22:39 +, Urs Liska wrote: > Oops, forgot to CC the list. > > But one more remark: You may have a look at the thread starting with > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-04/msg00335.html and > there especially the ZIP archive attached to > https://lists.gnu.o > rg/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-04/msg00351.html which gives two > really beautiful LilyPond renderings. > > Urs > > 27. Oktober 2019 21:48, "Urs Liska" schrieb: > > > Hi Karsten, > > > > I will have a closer look into this ASAP. > > But in the meantime it may be rewarding for you to have a look at > > the http://ctan.org/pkg/lyluatex > > package. > > > > In addition I would encourage you to consider integrating your > > efforts with > > https://github.com/openlilylib/analysis where we even have a stub > > for a harmony module. > > One caveat though: a "perfect" tool for musicologists will have to > > support not only one style of > > analysis symbols. > > Regarding musicological use cases you might want to also have a > > look at > > https://github.com/openlilylib/scholarly, > > https://github.com/uliska/lyluatexmp and > > https://github.com/uliska/lycritrprt (although the last two are > > pretty preliminary). Maybe also > > https://github.com/uliska/lilyglyphs > > > > Best > > Urs > > > > Am 27. Oktober 2019 17:31:28 MEZ schrieb Karsten Reincke < > > k.rein...@fodina.de>: > > > > > Dear Friends; > > > > > > Musicologists need more than writing pure music scores. They must > > > be > > > able to embed the score of music samples into their scientific > > > texts. > > > And they must be able to integrate the symbols of the functional > > > harmony theory into the score of their music samples. > > > > > > For using Lilypond with LaTeX there exists a well established > > > method to > > > embed the scores into the texts: lilypond-book. But there does > > > not > > > exist a good, sufficient and appropriate method to integrate the > > > analysis symbols into the scores. (Unfortunately, you cannot > > > combine > > > the LaTeX and the Lilypond techniques, because lilypond-book > > > finally > > > embeds a picture into the LaTeX code). > > > > > > Howsoever, the needs of a LaTeX loving musicologists can > > > completely be > > > fulfilled by using LaTex + MusixTeX + harmony (a LaTeX package). > > > (see > > > attached file cadenca2-by-musixtex-harmony.png) But in this case, > > > the > > > musicologist must unfortunately deal with the awkward syntax of > > > MusixTeX which he probably does not want. > > > > > > Hence we have a problem: either we use Lilypond (and cannot > > > express, > > > what we have to do) or we use MusixTex (and reduce our > > > productivity). > > > > > > For solving this challenge, I started to develop a GUILE based > > > Lilypond > > > library named 'harmonyli' which follows the idea(s) of the LaTeX > > > package harmony. I published it under the MIT license in a github > > > repository [ https://github.com/kreincke/harmonyli ]. (If you > > > feel, > > > that another license would better fit the needs and habits of the > > > Lilypond community, feel free to make respective proposals). This > > > repository contains the lib and an example (including a > > > Makefile). This > > > example is the Lilypond code of the MusixTex-eample above (see > > > attached > > > file cadenca2-by-lilypond-harmonyli.png) > > > > > > As you can see, the lilypond result is still a bit ugly, > > > especially if > > > you compare it with the MusixTeX solution. Hence, I need your > > > help for > > > improving the lib 'harmonyli': > > > > > > a) How can we place the number under the main functional symbols > > > (T, D, > > > S, Tp, Sp Dp,
Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)
Oops, forgot to CC the list. But one more remark: You may have a look at the thread starting with https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-04/msg00335.html and there especially the ZIP archive attached to https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-04/msg00351.html which gives two really beautiful LilyPond renderings. Urs 27. Oktober 2019 21:48, "Urs Liska" schrieb: > Hi Karsten, > > I will have a closer look into this ASAP. > But in the meantime it may be rewarding for you to have a look at the > http://ctan.org/pkg/lyluatex > package. > > In addition I would encourage you to consider integrating your efforts with > https://github.com/openlilylib/analysis where we even have a stub for a > harmony module. > One caveat though: a "perfect" tool for musicologists will have to support > not only one style of > analysis symbols. > Regarding musicological use cases you might want to also have a look at > https://github.com/openlilylib/scholarly, > https://github.com/uliska/lyluatexmp and > https://github.com/uliska/lycritrprt (although the last two are pretty > preliminary). Maybe also > https://github.com/uliska/lilyglyphs > > Best > Urs > > Am 27. Oktober 2019 17:31:28 MEZ schrieb Karsten Reincke > : > >> Dear Friends; >> >> Musicologists need more than writing pure music scores. They must be >> able to embed the score of music samples into their scientific texts. >> And they must be able to integrate the symbols of the functional >> harmony theory into the score of their music samples. >> >> For using Lilypond with LaTeX there exists a well established method to >> embed the scores into the texts: lilypond-book. But there does not >> exist a good, sufficient and appropriate method to integrate the >> analysis symbols into the scores. (Unfortunately, you cannot combine >> the LaTeX and the Lilypond techniques, because lilypond-book finally >> embeds a picture into the LaTeX code). >> >> Howsoever, the needs of a LaTeX loving musicologists can completely be >> fulfilled by using LaTex + MusixTeX + harmony (a LaTeX package). (see >> attached file cadenca2-by-musixtex-harmony.png) But in this case, the >> musicologist must unfortunately deal with the awkward syntax of >> MusixTeX which he probably does not want. >> >> Hence we have a problem: either we use Lilypond (and cannot express, >> what we have to do) or we use MusixTex (and reduce our productivity). >> >> For solving this challenge, I started to develop a GUILE based Lilypond >> library named 'harmonyli' which follows the idea(s) of the LaTeX >> package harmony. I published it under the MIT license in a github >> repository [ https://github.com/kreincke/harmonyli ]. (If you feel, >> that another license would better fit the needs and habits of the >> Lilypond community, feel free to make respective proposals). This >> repository contains the lib and an example (including a Makefile). This >> example is the Lilypond code of the MusixTex-eample above (see attached >> file cadenca2-by-lilypond-harmonyli.png) >> >> As you can see, the lilypond result is still a bit ugly, especially if >> you compare it with the MusixTeX solution. Hence, I need your help for >> improving the lib 'harmonyli': >> >> a) How can we place the number under the main functional symbols (T, D, >> S, Tp, Sp Dp, Tg, Sg, etc) [ this number indicates which tone is played >> by th bass ] exactly in the middle of the functional harmony symbols? >> >> b) how can we place the stack of numbers right aside of the main symbol >> as a superscriptblock really near by the symbol and without losing the >> feature, that each number of the stack can contain more than only one >> number (for enabling us to express grace notes like D4>3)? >> >> c) How can we align the symbols in a better way - just as it is done by >> the orginal LaTeX lib harmony? >> >> d) how can we enforce that the next note is printed into the staff if >> and when the analysis symbol of the note before is completely printed? >> >> e) How can we enforce that all analysis symbols are printed in row with >> suffcient space between them to understand them correctly? >> >> f) How can cross out the main harmony symbols for indicating that the >> base tone is missed (=not played)? Do we need additional symbols in a >> extra font or is there a technique to strike out any text? >> >> g) How can we condense / refactor the code so, that we do not have to >> write the same code twice or more. >> >> If you need to see the existing code, have a look at >> https://github.com/kreincke/harmonyli/blob/master/inc.harmonyli.ly . I >> appreciate any help you can give. I want to develop a perfect tool for >> musicologists - simply because I need it for a larger work of myself ;- >> ) >> >> How can you help me? Feel free >> a) to comment this mail >> b) to clone the rep, integrate your improvements and resend a pull >> request >> c) become an official developer by sending me your github account >>
