Am 25.05.2017 um 10:51 schrieb Andrew Bernard: > Hi Don, > > You cannot call this 'lock-in' because nobody has forced you to use > lilypond and you have not paid anything for it, and there is no intent > on the part of the lilypond project to capture you and your money. I > am unable to see how the concept of deliberate commercial 'lock-in' > applies to open source projects.
Then maybe I suggest to call it a practical-lock-in. As a user, if you've decided to work with LilyPond and created a project or even a whole library of projects, you're basically locked in to using them with LilyPond. There's currently no viable solution to take an existing project (at least of some complexity) and pass that on to someone who insists on using other software. There's no commercial intent to this, OK. And there's no restriction to create a solution, OK. But for a *user* this doesn't make any difference, he can't reuse his work otherwise. And apart from the usual case of commercial publishers insisting on Sibelius files there *are* other valid reasons why one would like to export LilyPond files. For example getting the music into a DAW to create *good* audio, where MIDI is still very limited. Or exporting to Humdrum files for which there is a plethora of tools for music analysis. And probably a lot more. > > Lack of export formats in lilypond is not a fair criticism, especially > since there is no universal music notation exchange standard, and > MusicXML is severely lacking in many respects, and is not necessarily > going to ever become a universal standard. I think it *is* a defect that LilyPond hasn't ever really considered export to *any* other encoding formats important (right from the initial conception). Yes, there is no ODF for music. But if LibreOffice wouldn't provide export filters for Word or Excel I think lots of people wouldn't be able to use it. Not being able to export to MusicXML (with all its limitations) is a hard reason not to use LilyPond for many people who might otherwise consider it. BTW: MEI may well become such a universal standard. > > If you need to export to ABC and so, then by all means start a project > to do it and recruit participants. If you were truly locked in, such a > path would not be possible. But let's face it: for the average user this path is only a theoretical option. Urs > One technical issue with 'downsampling' to a lesser format is what to > do with the sophisticated constructs that ABC cannot handle. > > The problem with not being able to work with Finale users is just on > of those things. Unfortunate. > > And sorry, I for one, even as a fanatically dedicated Linux user for > decades or however long, do not like needless bashing of Microsoft > with the M$ epithet. That's verging on trolling. > > On 25 May 2017 at 18:34, Don Gingrich <gingr...@internode.on.net > <mailto:gingr...@internode.on.net>> wrote: > > > > If not, then I suggest that this is a "lock-in" similar > > to that of some of the M$ programs. > > > > Andrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user -- u...@openlilylib.org https://openlilylib.org http://lilypondblog.org
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
