Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...

[Johnny Ferguson]

On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote:
> They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that.

<rant>

I think it's far too easy to make a statement like "They can still make 
money with GPL" especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T a GPL 
equivalent to FL. IL has been making FL since I was in high school (time 
ago). In all that time, no one has managed to make a non-crappy GPL DAW. 
I suspect it has something to do with the fact that most of the 
programmers are not artists. The only good audio app I know of that's 
native for linux is Renoise (and it's not GPL).

I just have a hard time dealing with GPL fanaticism, some attitude that 
seems to believe that anything created under a morally superior 
guideline must also be a better product or tool (essentially a 
non-sequitur). While it holds true for most GPL software, tools for 
audio and graphics are complete rubbish.

DAWs and graphic editors are some of the most complicated programs to 
write, not because they achieve extraordinary results, but because they 
need to be intuitive to be effective. It's hard to be creative when you 
spend more time trying to figure out where a tool/option/feature is when 
you're trying to create art. A lot of GPL tools are quite good, but they 
lack those few extra features for workflow.

Not saying GPL tools won't ever meet the caliber of current commercial 
products. I love the idea of the GPL, but I'm a little offended to hear 
people think that FL Studio could continue to hold on to what they've 
worked so hard for by going open-source. In a perfect world it would be 
great, but they have to eat, and I think they should eat in light of the 
amazing tool they've created and continue to support.

</rant>

>
> They can export to .ly format and support LilyPond development with
> employees  or money. That's also good option.
>

From my understanding of the GPL, IL would be free to make use of 
LilyPond, but if they modified the source in any way, they'd be 
obligated to provide those modifications to the public, or anyone they 
distribute the software to. They must also include the software license 
for lilypond with their distribution.

As far as linking, I am less clear on that. I think embedding actual 
lilypond source code into their app could be a no-no. I don't see why 
they couldn't call the lilypond program outside the main FL process though.

I'm kind of interested in why they need lilypond. If they're hoping to 
do realtime rendering of scores like some kind of new piano roll, I'd 
forget about that. If they're making the option to export songs as sheet 
music, I wonder why.

-Johnny

> 2010/7/21 Alexander Kobel<address@hidden>:
> > On 2010-07-18 14:53, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jean-Marie Cannie<address@hidden>
> > >   wrote:
> > > > We are the developers of FL Studio (formerly known as Fruityloops)
> > > > and we are looking to print music sheets direct from our software.
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > whilst I'm certain we all appreciate this tribute to LilyPond's
> > > quality and reliability, you have to know that GNU LilyPond is free
> > > software (GPLv3 licensed), and as such it cannot be embedded in (nor
> > > link to) non-free software.
> >
> > Wait a minute, is this real?
> >
> > MacOS X ships with XCode.  XCode ships with the GCC.  GCC is mentioned on
> > the no. 1 of Internet encyclopedias as the no. 2 of GPL-licensed software.
> > Does this mean that Apple
> >   a) has some weird kind of agreement with the developers of GCC (virtually
> > impossible, since the number is legion)?
> >   b) relies that nobody (e.g. Macrohard, the ones with Door OS) will ever
> > care and sue them?
> >   c) relies that if they ever get sued they'll either win the fight or just
> > have to pay a few bucks?
> >   d) just knows that this is allowed?
> >
> > I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding: d). A plain bundling of a binary
> > does not violate even the GPL.  It's not linked (not "making function calls
> > or sharing data structures"), it's not embedded, it's just shipped with
> > (without modifications, of course) and called.
> > If this is possible, it'd be a real good thing for LilyPond, by the way.
> >   Interested (and paid) developers who will have to spent at least a bit of
> > their time to interface and output of a program is always a Good Thing.
> >
> > By the way, reading the other mails: of course it's not an option to hope
> > for FL Studio to be relicensed under the GPL - FL wants to make money with
> > it.  It's their business, and it most probably won't work just with support.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alexander
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lilypond-user mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user