[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 21:16:33 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:

>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> The passage in question reads
>>>> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
>>>> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
>>>> of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
>>>> machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
>>>> in one of these ways:
>>> So possibly you have an objection distributing the PDF without its
>>> source code under those forms together with the source code of the
>>> program!?
>> Sigh.  This discussion stated that they aren't distributing the
>> documentation.  Of course distributing the PDF without corresponding
>> source code would not be appropriate,
> Please explain.

I don't see that anything I say makes any sense to you, and vice versa.
The whole point of the GPL is that any generated/compiled stuff has to
be accompanied by its source code.

>> ...but so far I haven't read anything
>> that doesn't instead suggest that they are distributing the source code
>> of the PDF without distributing the PDF because they have not met the
>> dependencies for building the PDF.
> That could possibly be done too.
>> Which is the complete opposite.
> But including the PDF would be more appropriate.

It would be more desirable.  The GPL does not demand it.  As long as you
don't deliver the documentation in compiled form, it's your choice
whether you make the source available or not.

>>> MacPorts admits making an independent binary installer from the
>>> distribution and one can choose what dependencies should be
>>> included, and also its install location.
>> Which has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the topic of
>> including the documentation.  Or access to the source code.
> Why do you think so?

What does the install location have to do with including documentation
or access to the source code?

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]