Andrew Bernard <andrew.bern...@gmail.com> writes: > On 10/08/13 7:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> 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. > But as Urs points out, LaTex and so on do not have this problem.
I recommend you reread what Urs write: TeXlive does not distribute support files for non-free fonts. Now it is not really because it would be a problem, but rather because it does not help the project, and you can't test that kind of stuff anyway without acquiring proprietary software. > Why restrict lilypond to one font? I might not be dissapointed! :-) Then I suggest you take your case to those who choose propretary licenses for their fonts. That's not the fault of the LilyPond project. > Am I the only one that wants more font choices? Maybe! >> >> <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." > Fonts are a program under this definition, are they? If a system will produce the intended output only with the use of proprietary components, then the conditions for which this sentence has been written are met. Whether or not you try your hand at mincing words. We hear from Barack Obama "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs." which is indeed a proper reflection of the design begind the secret programs: the point of the secrecy is making you not see the abuse. He is careful not to state "What I am not seeing" or "What isn't happening". Which is more a sign of professional pride (he is a lawyer, after all) than of necessity: a number of officials, starting with the Attorney General who should actually prosecute perjury, have demonstrated that straightforward lying with impunity under oath is fair game in American politics. Sorry for getting distracted, I just wanted to explain why I am currently possibly even less amused by semantic games than otherwise. > Aren't they purely a runtime construct? Does Emmentaler have to be > compiled in presently? Juggling words does not replace looking at the underlying issues. At the current point of time, namely where a generic drop-in interface _not_ requiring specific adaptation to proprietary fonts is not feasible, it is more important to look at the issues for using actually free fonts like Gonville or the Jazz font project that has come up here a few times. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user