> Last time I looked lilypond was part of the GNU project and it is open > source software. It does not therefore participate or compete in commercial > markets and it is not intended to. So you make a point that is difficult to > understand.
I don't think the GNU project has any rules about commercial activity. It is about software freedom, not being easy on people's wallets (even if that is the usual result). > If however you are discussing expanding the mindshare of lilypond in the > music publishing world, then I hardly think the cosmetic appearance of a > website is the most influential factor. That's a very shallow approach. > Surely it must be the quality and engineering of the software itself that > speaks for lilypond's virtues. If that were all there was to it, then LilyPond would surely be more popular than it is. This is not a zero sum game: improvements to the website do not come at the cost of the quality of the program, so that is not a reason to reject them. The end goal is the same: to encourage more people to use LilyPond, so your accusation that someone who wants to improve the website is being "shallow" is a bit unfair. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
