Re: SMuFL

[David Kastrup]

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.

> And why can't future Steinberg users incorporate lilypond fonts?

They can: they are released under both GPL and SIL.  But why should they
expect us to do the work needed to make proprietary software more
competitive?

> 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?

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.

<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."

-- 
David Kastrup