They can use LilyPond, no problem. They can export lilypond files AND use lilypond to render this lilypond files automatically AND import this pdf/ps/svg files somehow into their software. I just suggest to them, if they want to use lilypond like that, that they ALSO consider supporting the development with their work (with one employee from their company for example) or with some kind of donation to this wonderful project.
And yes, there are lots of succesful companies that work with free software and make money. In he multimedia world it is a little harder. Ardour works with donation and it is working like that. But GPL do not tell anything about charging money. You can sell your software with GPL.
And yes, there are many high quality free software for music/audio work: Ardour you (I don't care about MIDI, but can use ardour3 if you want), QTractor, SuperCollider, Frescobaldi+Lilypond, etc
2010/7/22 Johnny Ferguson <address@hidden>:s
> On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: >> They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. > > <rant> > > I think it's far too easy to make a statement like "They can still make
> money with GPL" especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL > equivalent to FL. IL has been making FL since I was in high school (time > ago). In all that time, no one has managed to make a non-crappy GPL DAW. I
> suspect it has something to do with the fact that most of the programmers > are not artists. The only good audio app I know of that's native for linux > is Renoise (and it's not GPL). > > I just have a hard time dealing with GPL fanaticism, some attitude that
> seems to believe that anything created under a morally superior guideline > must also be a better product or tool (essentially a non-sequitur). While it > holds true for most GPL software, tools for audio and graphics are complete
> rubbish. > > DAWs and graphic editors are some of the most complicated programs to write, > not because they achieve extraordinary results, but because they need to be > intuitive to be effective. It's hard to be creative when you spend more time
> trying to figure out where a tool/option/feature is when you're trying to > create art. A lot of GPL tools are quite good, but they lack those few extra > features for workflow. > > Not saying GPL tools won't ever meet the caliber of current commercial
> products. I love the idea of the GPL, but I'm a little offended to hear > people think that FL Studio could continue to hold on to what they've worked > so hard for by going open-source. In a perfect world it would be great, but
> they have to eat, and I think they should eat in light of the amazing tool > they've created and continue to support. > > </rant> > >> >> They can export to .ly format and support LilyPond development with
>> employees or money. That's also good option. >> > > From my understanding of the GPL, IL would be free to make use of LilyPond, > but if they modified the source in any way, they'd be obligated to provide
> those modifications to the public, or anyone they distribute the software > to. They must also include the software license for lilypond with their > distribution. > > As far as linking, I am less clear on that. I think embedding actual
> lilypond source code into their app could be a no-no. I don't see why they > couldn't call the lilypond program outside the main FL process though. > > I'm kind of interested in why they need lilypond. If they're hoping to do
> realtime rendering of scores like some kind of new piano roll, I'd forget > about that. If they're making the option to export songs as sheet music, I > wonder why. > > -Johnny >
>> 2010/7/21 Alexander Kobel<address@hidden>: >>> >>> On 2010-07-18 14:53, Valentin Villenave wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Cannie<address@hidden>
>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops) >>>>> and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software.
>>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's >>>> quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free
>>>> software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor >>>> link to) non-free software. >>> >>> Wait a minute, is this real? >>> >>> MacOS X ships with XCode. XCode ships with the GCC. GCC is mentioned on
>>> the no. 1 of Internet encyclopedias as the no. 2 of GPL-licensed >>> software. >>> Does this mean that Apple >>> a) has some weird kind of agreement with the developers of GCC
>>> (virtually >>> impossible, since the number is legion)? >>> b) relies that nobody (e.g. Macrohard, the ones with Door OS) will ever >>> care and sue them? >>> c) relies that if they ever get sued they'll either win the fight or
>>> just >>> have to pay a few bucks? >>> d) just knows that this is allowed? >>> >>> I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding: d). A plain bundling of a >>> binary
>>> does not violate even the GPL. It's not linked (not "making function >>> calls >>> or sharing data structures"), it's not embedded, it's just shipped with >>> (without modifications, of course) and called.
>>> If this is possible, it'd be a real good thing for LilyPond, by the way. >>> Interested (and paid) developers who will have to spent at least a bit >>> of >>> their time to interface and output of a program is always a Good Thing.
>>> >>> By the way, reading the other mails: of course it's not an option to hope >>> for FL Studio to be relicensed under the GPL - FL wants to make money >>> with >>> it. It's their business, and it most probably won't work just with
>>> support. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alexander >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lilypond-user mailing list
>>> address@hidden >>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >>>
>> >> _______________________________________________ >> lilypond-user mailing list >> address@hidden >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > address@hidden > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>