I don't think we should filter out anything below a Bärenreiter publication ;-)
The point is to show what Lilypond is good and valuable for. So I'd say (but I'm not responsible for this): Anything that is in some way public (and possibly even linkable) qualifes immediately. Private use may also be useful for this purpose. If you can say: my church choir can sing better from LilyPond scores, it's a perfect advertisment for downloading lilypond, isn't it? And I'd estimate a statement like 'I use LilyPond for my analyzes because I can use style sheets to mark my results' also a valuable contribution. But as mentioned, I'm not responsible for this, so (all out there) get in touch with Mike ... Best Urs -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. Henning Hraban Ramm <hra...@fiee.net> schrieb: 2012/5/7 Urs Liska <li...@ursliska.de>: > And I really stronly suggest, that - in addition to discussing the technical > aspects - people think about submitting entries to Mike. > I can't imagine that there aren't quite a few 'tweetable' projects out > there. > And I would consider it a very contraproductive 'statement' if it would > remain a list of only two projects ... Would you "tweet" about a small LilyPond song score in a church magazine? That’s one of my regular uses, and I consider it "too minor". My other "main use" are song sheets/booklets for my private pleasure, and since they contain mostly copyrighted songs, I can’t publish them, unfortunately. And I guess a lot of other users have similar problems – how much sense makes a tweet about some unspectacular internal use of LilyPond? Greetlings, Hraban _____________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
