Re: OLL

[Damian leGassick]

OLL is something that I have occasionally looked into, and something that I am 
reassured to know is there: it is something that I hoped to use more in the 
future. I do use notation-fonts. I have not used ScholarLy, Edition-engraver 
and Analysis so far on occasions when, in hindsight, it would have been useful 
simply because of the sketchy documentation. That is, I found it quicker to use 
LaTex and graphics to get the job done. I doubt I’m the only one.

The thought of OLL disappearing does sadden me going forward. I am not a 
scheme/C programmer but I would be happy to help by fully and finally getting 
to grips with OLL and working on use-cases or documentation.

Damian

> On 10 Oct 2020, at 14:40, Andrew Bernard <andrew.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> Since Urs has stepped down from OLL work for personal reasons, as
> somebody who has written code for OLL, and contributed some snippets
> of some utility, I have been considering taking it all over. I have
> proposed to make a new domain openlilylib.space, move to Gitlab.
> establish a website on my personal Linux servers at my own expense,
> and add much more documentation and morenad try to communicate the use
> and utility of OLL to end users.
> 
> I have written to a few of the members of the list and perhaps it is
> too soon but I have only heard back from one person. There have been
> no contributions for some time. And now suddenly the thread about
> licencing has risen again, a topic which I find absurd and I would
> refuse to countenance it for any OLL work ongoing that I would be
> doing. It seems that thread is trying to actively discourage OLL use.
> 
> Like Urs, I get the impression that the effort on OLL is not worth the
> return, as hardly anybody seems to use it and there appears to be
> little interest. This is very disappointing. So, may I ask - it is
> worth me continuing the development and maintenance of OLL?
> 
> Andrew
> 
> [I am not prepared to discuss changes to GPL and anything related to 
> licences.]
>