Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

[David Kastrup]

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, 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.

Which is the complete opposite.

>>>>> 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.

-- 
David Kastrup