lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SMuFL


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: SMuFL
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:43:51 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 10.08.2013 10:30, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Andrew Bernard <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> This is of great interest to me because several of the people I do
>>> scores for (contemporary composers) do not favour the very heavy black
>>> Germanic look of the standard lilypond font, attractive though it may
>>> be. It would be nice to have a wider choice to offer in the future,
>>> and if SMuFL takes off as a standard, there may well be many fonts to
>>> choose from.
>> 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?
>>
> "Steinberg is making Bravura available under the SIL Open Font
> License."  That's a start.

Yes.

> Adobe won't release their fonts under an open license, nevertheless
> we're happy to have standards that allow us to freely select from free
> and non-free fonts.

Correction: that allow those people for which unfree licensing is not an
issue to select from free and non-free fonts.  That is outside of the
scope of the GNU project, however.

At any rate, LilyPond does not have the infrastructure to select its
music from different music fonts right now, even if we are not talking
about the coding vector and metric problems regarding supporting a
prescribed standard.

-- 
David Kastrup




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]