Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

[Hans Åberg]

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 21:16, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.

That is not what the paragraph say, and be provided independently on any of 
those forms. 

>>> ...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.

Just make it available in any of those forms.

>>>> 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?

The stuff is merged, so you can have different installers if you so like.