Evan Driscoll <drisc...@cs.wisc.edu> writes: > As a fairly outside observer who is only an occasional user of Lilypond.... > > On 08/09/2013 11:43 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: >> The concern I have on SMuFL is that it is an as-of-yet immature standard >> without broad support outside of Steinberg. ... Will it be a futile >> effort because the SMuFL standard dies from lack of interest/acceptance? > > A flip side of that question is: How much would adding Lilypond support > for SMuFL help to *make* SMuFL into an accepted and common standard?
Depends on what you mean with "adding LilyPond support". a) LilyPond can read and process SMuFL fonts optionally -> nothing b) LilyPond converts its own font infrastructure to SMuFL -> some c) Someone takes LilyPond fonts and converts them to SMuFL -> some What is in it for LilyPond in the context of free software? a) depends on the availability of free SMuFL fonts. If none -> nothing. b) Ongoing and existing free fonts for LilyPond (Gonville, Jazz) stop working -> worse than nothing c) Nothing. > I don't want to say "you guys should (not) support SMuFL", but I think > that question is worth thinking about, even if you decide the answer > is "probably not much." :-) Like with many standards, it will be the task of those who want to promote the standard to do so with sufficient incentives. For a free software project, the incentive would be freely redistributable fonts. If we can't include the fonts in, say, a DFSG-compliant distribution like Debian or bundle them with our GPL-licensed downloads, the benefits for LilyPond as free software don't exist. For letting proprietary vendors get interested in a standard, "gratis" or "cheap" might be enough with regard to the incentive material. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
