Am 11.08.2013 15:54, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes:
I don't think a GNU project should actively _prevent_ the use of
non-free software/fonts.
AS long as the Bravura font is available under the SIL open font
license, this is not really relevant to this discussion. But at any
rate, the issue is putting logic in with the _sole_ purpose of
supporting non-free software. That's not useful for a GNU project.
Otherwise one should remove Pango as this allows one to use non-free
text fonts.
It also allows one to use free text fonts.
That's what I wanted to stress.
More than once in this discussion we had comments that seem to indicate
that SMuFL is evil because it allows non-free fonts to be used.
But if for example someone would (hypothetically) provide a means to
use alternative fonts, this contribution wouldn't have to be rejected,
right? Otherwise one should remove Pango as soon as possible too ...
Pango supports free fonts.
As is the idea with SMuFL.
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:
1)
Conceptually it would be acceptable to have LilyPond support SMuFL
compliant fonts.
2)
An important issue is the relation between advantages such a change
would have for commercial vendors vs. free software projects. And their
users.
A subquestion in this respect is if SMuFL turns out to be/become an
'open' standard.
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.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
