Re: Lutoslawski-style box notation

[David Nalesnik]

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 6:09 AM Thomas Morley <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

Hi Harm,

<IANAL>
But I think we're talking about different things.  You're talking
about communications on an official channel connected with the
project.  I'm talking about posting code which modifies LilyPond on a
third-party forum -- GitHub.
</IANAL>

Best,
David