Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

[Hans Åberg]

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The passage in question reads
>>> 
>>> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
>>> 
>>> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
>>> of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
>>> machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
>>> in one of these ways:
>> 
>> So possibly you have an objection distributing the PDF without its
>> source code under those forms together with the source code of the
>> program!?
> 
> 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.

> ...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. 

>>>>>> MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and
>>>>>> the binary installer, so the latter can have just the docs without
>>>>>> the stuff required to build it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unless I am mistaken we are talking about the documentation being
>>>>> completely absent.  Which is legitimate but unfortunate.
>>>> 
>>>> There are various possibilities.
>>> 
>>> Usually an applicable truism even if I have no clue what you are
>>> referring to here.
>> 
>> 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?