|
From: | Urs Liska |
Subject: | Re: Lilypond lobbying? |
Date: | Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:38:44 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 |
Am 22.08.2011 14:23, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
The point is to be more open in a bidirectional exchange. This option would allow to write scores in LilyPond even when you for some reason or the other are obliged to produce Finale/Sibelius files. There are several situations I could think of:
While we all would prefer being able to sell our Lily files, we have to live with the fact that this is often not possible. This mail that I had to read gives an unwanted but good argument why editors have the right to insist on their "workflow": http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg64139.html. Having the possibility to stay somewhat compatible would ease the step to try out LilyPond for other typesetters and would thus probably increase the user base. This is somewhat comparable to the impact of the existence of Dual Boot setups (and then Virtual Machines and even Into-Windows-Installing) on the increased amount of Linux users. When I started to use LilyPond I didn't expect at all that I would someday have to deal with real world publishers. If I had known then, I might never had given LilyPond a try. 2011/8/22 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:Jan-Peter Voigt <address@hidden> writes:Does anyone know, what happens, if someone uses a sib-generated xml in finale?Jean Sibelius turns counterclockwise in his grave, as opposed to his direction when typesetting a score with Sibelius.:D :D :D :D :D :D :D cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list address@hidden https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |