Re: SMuFL

[David Kastrup]

Andrew Bernard <address@hidden> writes:

> On 10/08/13 7:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> 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.

I recommend you reread what Urs write: TeXlive does not distribute
support files for non-free fonts.  Now it is not really because it would
be a problem, but rather because it does not help the project, and you
can't test that kind of stuff anyway without acquiring proprietary
software.

> Why restrict lilypond to one font? I might not be dissapointed! :-)

Then I suggest you take your case to those who choose propretary
licenses for their fonts.  That's not the fault of the LilyPond project.

> 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?

If a system will produce the intended output only with the use of
proprietary components, then the conditions for which this sentence has
been written are met.  Whether or not you try your hand at mincing
words.

We hear from Barack Obama "What you're not seeing is people actually
abusing these programs." which is indeed a proper reflection of the
design begind the secret programs: the point of the secrecy is making
you not see the abuse.  He is careful not to state "What I am not
seeing" or "What isn't happening".  Which is more a sign of professional
pride (he is a lawyer, after all) than of necessity: a number of
officials, starting with the Attorney General who should actually
prosecute perjury, have demonstrated that straightforward lying with
impunity under oath is fair game in American politics.

Sorry for getting distracted, I just wanted to explain why I am
currently possibly even less amused by semantic games than otherwise.

> Aren't they purely a runtime construct?  Does Emmentaler have to be
> compiled in presently?

Juggling words does not replace looking at the underlying issues.  At
the current point of time, namely where a generic drop-in interface
_not_ requiring specific adaptation to proprietary fonts is not
feasible, it is more important to look at the issues for using actually
free fonts like Gonville or the Jazz font project that has come up here
a few times.

-- 
David Kastrup