Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> I think "so poorly documented that in practice almost no one can
>> understand how it works" still can't qualify as "in effect
>> proprietary".
>
> It is not *that* badly documented. However, the number of people who
> understand Metafont are rather small today.
git sh
> I think "so poorly documented that in practice almost no one can
> understand how it works" still can't qualify as "in effect
> proprietary".
It is not *that* badly documented. However, the number of people who
understand Metafont are rather small today.
> - Someone who doesn't really want to
Andrew Bernard writes:
> Emmentaler is, in effect, proprietary, although free.
I disagree. I think "so poorly documented that in practice almost no one
can understand how it works" still can't qualify as "in effect
proprietary".
It just qualifies as "needing a huge amount of work; work that the
if you provide an example this will increase your chance of getting an
answer.
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Page-Number-Too-High-tp148969p148971.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
The Paderewski edition of Chopin Nocturne #3 often puts the sustain pedal
markings inside parentheses.
I don't have a scan of it to post here, but the fancy "Ped" indication
appears directly beneath the note it starts on, but there is an open
parenthesis just to the left of the "Ped". The parenth
Evan Driscoll 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
>
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 stand
Carl Peterson schrieb:
>On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:46 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Andrew Bernard 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 feeli
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:46 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Andrew Bernard 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, i
Andrew Bernard 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
>> effo
Andrew Bernard schrieb:
>Greetings List,
>
>On 10/08/13 6:57 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
>> Of course this is all quite complex and difficult.
>Which is why this discussion thread is important, I reckon.
>> One thought:
>> Of course you can buy commercial fonts and use them with LaTeX.
>I use commer
On 10/08/13 7:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Andrew Bernard writes:
Interesting valid points David.
But I was thinking that it although lilypond is open source, why can't
I purchase _commercial_ music fonts to use with it, just as one does
for print typesetting?
Because they are not standardize
Andrew Bernard writes:
> Interesting valid points David.
>
> But I was thinking that it although lilypond is open source, why can't
> I purchase _commercial_ music fonts to use with it, just as one does
> for print typesetting?
Because they are not standardized. At any rate, it's not much of a
Greetings List,
On 10/08/13 6:57 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
Of course this is all quite complex and difficult.
Which is why this discussion thread is important, I reckon.
One thought:
Of course you can buy commercial fonts and use them with LaTeX.
I use commercial fonts with the open source ConTeXT
Am 10.08.2013 10:52, schrieb Andrew Bernard:
Interesting valid points David.
But I was thinking that it although lilypond is open source, why can't
I purchase _commercial_ music fonts to use with it, just as one does
for print typesetting? I did not see the fonts as being tied to buying
the e
Interesting valid points David.
But I was thinking that it although lilypond is open source, why can't I
purchase _commercial_ music fonts to use with it, just as one does for
print typesetting? I did not see the fonts as being tied to buying the
engraving software, but a decoupled market. I c
Andrew Bernard writes:
> This is of great interest to me because several of the people I do
> scores for (contemporary composers) do not favour the very heavy black
> Germanic look of the standard lilypond font, attractive though it may
> be. It would be nice to have a wider choice to offer in th
Thanks Werner for pointing this out.
It would help if I read the SMuFL standard before commenting. :-) So I
think my previous comments are invalid. Now that I have read the
standard v 0.6, I see that it works hand in hand with Unicode, and is
not in opposition to, or outside of Unicode. Given
18 matches
Mail list logo
