Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the
> problem exactly? I am pretty sure that
>
> a) Apple has been distributing GPL'd binaries with OSX. I bet they
> were built with XCode.

GPL-2.0.  And of course Apple is not bound by the conditions of its own
licenses.

> b) Apple has a band of lawyers that ensure that they stay within the
> constraints of the license.
>
> (see also
> https://curius.de/blog/13-betriebssysteme/open-source/354-wenn-lizenzen-zur-huerde-werden-macos-und-die-gpl
> , in German).
>
> If Apple and their lawyers think it is fine to redistribute GPL
> binaries made with XCode, then we should be fine too.

They don't distribute stuff under GPL-3.0, like newer versions of GCC.
And we are not worrying about heeding the GPL but about heeding the
XCode license.

> Why does LilyPond need still need GCC these days?

Currently there is a C++ incompatibility with Clang that's pretty hard
to get around.  But that's not really relevant regarding GUB operation
in connection with XCode.

-- 
David Kastrup