0 Am 18. August 2018 13:08:19 MESZ schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >Urs Liska <li...@openlilylib.org> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm pulling my hair because I don't manage to find a certain term to >> use in an abstract. >> >> We've talked about the issue over and over again, but how do we call >> it when using proprietary software prevents us from changing the >tools >> to work with our data/documents? (Well, actually the same effect that >> prevents us to edit LilyPond scores with other programs, although >> that's not for license but only for practical reasons). > >It's not for "license reasons" with proprietary software either since >reading the same file format with a program written from scratch would >be perfectly fine. Patents may intervene in strange cases from >providing such a program, but copyright generally does. >
Indeed, that wasn't expressed too well. What I meant is that CodaMusic's policy to use binary non-released (for some time even encrypted) file formats strongly discouraged anyone to make a program use these files. In LilyPond's case it's "only" the sheer size of the task. >At any rate, I'd use the term "lock-in" for tool-specific formats, >usually in the form of "vendor lock-in". Yes, that's exactly it. Urs > >There is also the expression "walled garden" but it's more used for >things like app stores. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
