Re: SMuFL

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.08.2013 10:52, schrieb Andrew Bernard:
> 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? I did not see the fonts as being tied to buying 
> the engraving software, but a decoupled market. I can see music system 
> vendors selling fonts just like Adobe does.
>
> And why can't future Steinberg users incorporate lilypond fonts? After 
> all, lilypond is open source and we are encouraging people to have it 
> for free, work with it, extend it and nurture it. Or are the open 
> source licensing restrictions that prevent lilypond components such as 
> fonts being utilised by commercial software (I don't know)? And I 
> think you can download Steinberg Bravura font presently for free, 
> although I understand this is principally as a reference font 
> implementation for SMuFL.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On 10/08/13 6:30 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Do you really think that proprietary music system vendors will 
> > release their fonts in a usable form under free licenses so that 
> > people can forego buying their software and use LilyPond instead?
Of course this is all quite complex and difficult.
One thought:
Of course you can buy commercial fonts and use them with LaTeX.
But the free TeX distros won't for example packages that are "macros 
supporting non-free fonts".

Although I personally would like to have the option to use proprietary 
fonts with LilyPond.

Urs