lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Follow-up question to alternate music fonts


From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Follow-up question to alternate music fonts
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:01:20 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0

Am 11.07.2014 07:00, schrieb David Kastrup:
tisimst <address@hidden> writes:

All,

Is there anyone who is VERY against distributing music fonts in binary form
(i.e., as otf, svg, etc.files)? I just don't see how we can make other music
fonts available by forcing them to have a metafont source file. I guess that
could be nice, but it seems like so much work to do that. I have about 4 or
5 alternate music fonts that people could use and I certainly don't want to
convert them to metafont. They are currently designed and built with
fontforge.

What do you think?

Spirit of the GPL is delivering source code, defined as "preferred form
of modification, including all scripts etc".  Now fonts are reasonably
separate anyway, but that's what we should stick with.  METAFONT is just
one possibility here.

If the fonts are derived from some upstream source, automating the
derivation as much as possible makes sense in order to facilitate
integrating future improvements from upstream.


IIRC Abraham uses scripts to bring existing fonts (e.g. Bravura) to the usable form. If that should be a completely automated process and would for example make it possible to update the Profondo font automatically if a new version of Bravura comes out that would be quite good. Bravura itself is *not* delivered as source code, for example.

Urs



reply via email to

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