Re: Lutoslawski-style box notation

[Thomas Morley]

Am So., 4. Nov. 2018 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb David Nalesnik
<address@hidden>:
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:24 PM David Nalesnik <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:23 PM Andrew Bernard <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > Isn't Lilypond open source? Cant you make your code open source? I am not 
> > > following your idea.
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> And, no :(  I removed it from GitHub, because I simply do not
> > >> understand how I would license such a thing, give proper
> > >> acknowledgement to LilyPond.  It quotes code from LilyPond internals,
> > >> and before I put something up on GitHub I would need to make sure I'm
> > >> not violating the terms of LilyPond's license.
> > >>
>
> Oops, sorry about the empty response.
>
> Sure, yes, I just want to make sure that I release it under the right
> license (I suppose it must be GPLed) and include whatever I must
> relative to LilyPond coverage by the GPL .  I just jumped the gun,
> that's all.
>
> David

Hi David,

is it really an issue I have to think about licenses as soon as I use
some lily-internals?
For example, whenever I propose a callback with some condition using
'ly:grob-set-property!' and the like...

In a worst scenario that would drop any user support other than:
"RTFM" (or more polite: it's in the docs, look "here".)
Or
"It's not in the docs, please file a bug report."
Or
"You could do like below [...]. Please accept my licence: <what-ever-license>"

Really?


Best,
  Harm