Re: SMuFL

[Urs Liska]

Am 11.08.2013 15:54, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
> > I don't think a GNU project should actively _prevent_ the use of
> > non-free software/fonts.
> AS long as the Bravura font is available under the SIL open font
> license, this is not really relevant to this discussion.  But at any
> rate, the issue is putting logic in with the _sole_ purpose of
> supporting non-free software.  That's not useful for a GNU project.
>
> > Otherwise one should remove Pango as this allows one to use non-free
> > text fonts.
> It also allows one to use free text fonts.

That's what I wanted to stress.
More than once in this discussion we had comments that seem to indicate 
that SMuFL is evil because it allows non-free fonts to be used.

> > But if for example someone would (hypothetically) provide a means to
> > use alternative fonts, this contribution wouldn't have to be rejected,
> > right? Otherwise one should remove Pango as soon as possible too ...
> Pango supports free fonts.
As is the idea with SMuFL.

As I see it we have three core issues in this discussion. And we seem to 
be going in circles because of the interdependencies of these three issues:

1)
Conceptually it would be acceptable to have LilyPond support SMuFL 
compliant fonts.
2)
An important issue is the relation between advantages such a change 
would have for commercial vendors vs. free software projects. And their 
users.
A subquestion in this respect is if SMuFL turns out to be/become an 
'open' standard.
3)
It's currently not really an option to tackle such a change from the 
technical POV.
LilyPond is quite far away from being able to play together with other 
fonts.