[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SMuFL
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: SMuFL |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Aug 2013 22:16:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Evan Driscoll <address@hidden> writes:
> As a fairly outside observer who is only an occasional user of Lilypond....
>
> On 08/09/2013 11:43 PM, Carl Peterson wrote:
>> The concern I have on SMuFL is that it is an as-of-yet immature standard
>> without broad support outside of Steinberg. ... Will it be a futile
>> effort because the SMuFL standard dies from lack of interest/acceptance?
>
> A flip side of that question is: How much would adding Lilypond support
> for SMuFL help to *make* SMuFL into an accepted and common standard?
Depends on what you mean with "adding LilyPond support".
a) LilyPond can read and process SMuFL fonts optionally -> nothing
b) LilyPond converts its own font infrastructure to SMuFL -> some
c) Someone takes LilyPond fonts and converts them to SMuFL -> some
What is in it for LilyPond in the context of free software?
a) depends on the availability of free SMuFL fonts. If none -> nothing.
b) Ongoing and existing free fonts for LilyPond (Gonville, Jazz) stop
working -> worse than nothing
c) Nothing.
> I don't want to say "you guys should (not) support SMuFL", but I think
> that question is worth thinking about, even if you decide the answer
> is "probably not much." :-)
Like with many standards, it will be the task of those who want to
promote the standard to do so with sufficient incentives. For a free
software project, the incentive would be freely redistributable fonts.
If we can't include the fonts in, say, a DFSG-compliant distribution
like Debian or bundle them with our GPL-licensed downloads, the benefits
for LilyPond as free software don't exist.
For letting proprietary vendors get interested in a standard, "gratis"
or "cheap" might be enough with regard to the incentive material.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: SMuFL, (continued)
- Re: SMuFL, Jan-Peter Voigt, 2013/08/09
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/09
- Re: SMuFL, Carl Peterson, 2013/08/09
- Re: SMuFL, Urs Liska, 2013/08/09
- Re: SMuFL, Shane Brandes, 2013/08/09
- Re: SMuFL, Andrew Bernard, 2013/08/09
- Re: SMuFL, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Carl Peterson, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/08/10
- Re: Re: SMuFL, Evan Driscoll, 2013/08/10
- Re: SMuFL,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: SMuFL, Andrew Bernard, 2013/08/10
- 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