Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

[Karlin High]

On 2/24/2019 5:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
> > Xcode license:
> >    https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf
>
> Well, I think that one is pretty clear:
>
>      2.5
>      Copies
>
>      [...] For clarity, You may copy only the entire package or piece of
>      the Apple Software and Services in its entirety and only for use as
>      permitted herein. You may not alter the Apple Software or Services
>      in any way in such copy, e.g., You are expressly prohibited from
>      separately using the Apple SDKs or attempting to run any part of the
>      Apple Software on non-Apple-branded hardware.  [...]
>
> So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB.
> It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX
> packagers/versions altogether.


I wonder what the chances are of finding an older XCode's Apple SDK with 
a more permissive license agreement? Archive.org's oldest copy of that 
Apple SLA document link is from 2011:

<http://web.archive.org/web/20111023213852/https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf>

The XCodes I was eyeing for SDK extraction are from 2009 or so.

I'm still thinking it would be ideal if the macOS LilyPond could be 
built as it now is. That's the least work for LilyPond build people, and 
probably the best result for macOS users.

I'm planing to ask on the Apple Developer Forum about possibilities for 
Linux cross-compile - explaining our current situation, future options, 
and software license concerns.
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA