Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
>>> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac.  We could even
>>> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
>> 
>> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration
>> one has to make explicit 'make pdf' and 'make install-pdf'.  It
>> would be nice to have it, so one does not have to go to the site and
>> download it by hand.  With MacPorts, one would get it all
>> automatically when updating the packages.
>
> Well, building the documentation is not trivial.  It is certainly
> doable within MacPorts; however, the Portfile isn't set up for that,
> and I guess it would add a lot of additional dependencies.

Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
everything you distribute.  Not for everything that we'd wish to get
distributed or for scripts that we'd want to exist but that don't.  So
there is no GPL angle to getting that situation improved.  It's work
that hasn't been done, not work that is being withheld in spite of its
products getting distributed.

So legally, this situation can persist arbitrarily long.  If someone
wants to help the MacPorts people fixing it, that might make a
difference.

-- 
David Kastrup