Re: SMuFL

[Andrew Bernard]

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