Re: SMuFL

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> 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:

More like because people don't listen and instead of addressing an
argument bring up something else again since there is more than one
issue involved.

> 1)
> Conceptually it would be acceptable to have LilyPond support SMuFL
> compliant fonts.

Supporting something is not the question.  The question is whether there
are efforts needed _specifically_ to support only hypothetical or
non-free fonts.  That question is rendered moot by the existence of a
freely licensed Bravura font though the jury is out on just how usable
it may be at the current point of time.

> 2)
> An important issue is the relation between advantages such a change
> would have for commercial vendors vs. free software projects. And
> their users.

No, not really.  The relation is not interesting.  The only question the
LilyPond project as such needs to concern itself with is "what
advantages and disadvantages does this have for using LilyPond in the
context of free software".  Whether or not proprietary projects and
their users benefit is not an issue either way.  We do not want to make
it harder to use or maintain LilyPond with free fonts.  That's all.

> 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.

Yes.  There is no point in thinking about switching between fonts with a
different layout when we can't even switch between fonts using the same
layout.

-- 
David Kastrup