Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 29. Oktober 2019 00:04:06 MEZ schrieb David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>>Andrew Bernard <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden>
>>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