On 2012-05-24, at 12:56 PM, Jeff Barnes <jbarnes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> And actually, releasing source for free but binaries for fee makes > >> some sense. > > Agreed. Especially on platforms where build environments aren't free But if I had to pay to update from 2.14 to 2.16, I just wouldn't, and never mind unstable 2.odd. With fewer users updating, bugs would not be found and features not explored, appreciated, and improved. I am not sure how much I would be willing to pay for Lilypond. Can justify to my wife paying, say, $20 for some "free" software that I use occasionally and do not make any profit on? I think I would be slightly more comfortable making a donation to Lilypond rather than to David Kastrup, even if in the end the money goes to the same purse. Maybe the reason is that my donation would be in appreciation of what works, not payment towards future features. Just some thoughts, sadly no solution. Why don't we find some billionaire who can just hire David to do what David does best? Regards, Mogens _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
