[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SMuFL
From: |
Andrew Bernard |
Subject: |
Re: SMuFL |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:20:28 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 |
On 10/08/13 7:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Andrew Bernard <address@hidden> writes:
Interesting valid points David.
But I was thinking that it although lilypond is open source, why can't
I purchase _commercial_ music fonts to use with it, just as one does
for print typesetting?
Because they are not standardized. At any rate, it's not much of a
priority for a free software project to make it easier to use
proprietary software.
I was not clear. What I meant was, if SMuFL does become an accepted
standard, then fonts could be standardised, and then we could use them
if lilypond adopted SMuFL.
After all, lilypond is open source and we are encouraging people to
have it for free, work with it, extend it and nurture it.
And contribute back. That's why LilyPond is under a Copyleft license in
the first place. So what's the contribution back that we can expect?
A wider range of choice of fonts to use when engraving? Therefore, more
usability and more choice for the engraver and composer?
Of course, people are free to do whatever they want with their own time
and efforts. But if you do it out of a feeling of contributing to
LilyPond, it may be worth looking quite closer before investing a lot of
effort. You might also be disappointed in the lack of uptake by the
LilyPond websites, manuals and other resources for proprietary font
support.
But as Urs points out, LaTex and so on do not have this problem. Why
restrict lilypond to one font? I might not be dissapointed! :-) Am I the
only one that wants more font choices? Maybe!
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Ethical-and-Philosophical-Consideration>
states: "A GNU package should not recommend use of any non-free program,
nor should it require a non-free program (such as a non-free compiler or
IDE) to build."
Fonts are a program under this definition, are they? Aren't they purely
a runtime construct? Does Emmentaler have to be compiled in presently?
Andrew
- Re: SMuFL, (continued)
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Andrew Bernard, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Andrew Bernard, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, David Rogers, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Janek WarchoĊ, 2013/08/17
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL,
Andrew Bernard <=
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Carl Peterson, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Johan Vromans, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Andrew Bernard, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, David Kastrup, 2013/08/11
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/11