On 07/07/16 08:38, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
On 07/07/2016 02:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Federico Bruni <f...@inventati.org> writes:
Who should be in your opinion the author of a LilyPond score PDF? The
composer or the typesetter?
Usefulness does not come into play here as long as there is a standard.
The PDF standard states:
Key Type Value
Author text string (Optional) The name of the person who
created the document.
“[T]he person who created the document” is extremely ambiguous. Is
“the document” the composition, the score, the arrangement... ? The
philosophers with whom I work can (and do!) spend years debating these
things.
None of those. The document is the computer file. If I hit "new" in MS
Word, it is my name that gets plonked in the "author" field of *that*
document. The fact that I *may* be copying *another* document is
irrelevant - what I am copying is something else - a different document.
I created the current document, I am the author. (Unfortunately, the
word author implies creativity, but then, they did create the document :-)
The shortest realistic answer is that whoever creates the PDF decides
who the “author” of that PDF is; if they don’t care enough to credit
someone else, then it’s them, or no one at all.
Sounds like they should have used the word "scribe", not "author". Only
snag is, they would then have had people asking "what is a scribe?". But
think of a shaman dictating a story to a western collector. The shaman
is the story-teller, the westerner (the scribe) is the author of the book.
Cheers,
Wol
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
