Jeff Barnes <jbarnes...@yahoo.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > >> Jeff Barnes <jbarnes...@yahoo.com> writes: > >>> But most forward thinking publishing companies
Forward thinking? Are we talking about the music publishing industry? >>> would give the source code back. After all, their core business >>> isn't <edit>LilyPond</edit>, it's publishing. >>> >>> Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :) >> >> You don't want to help the competition. > > Perhaps with the passing of the old guard old ideas will die. It's > not a matter of helping the competition, because the real competition > is over content. Uh, we _are_ talking about the music publishing industry? The fundamental cash cow for the music publishers is content that has, as opposed to its recurrently retouched and consequently recopyrighted _printings_, run out of copyright protection long ago. For better or worse, modern classical music sells far less than old classical music. Rant at <URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-26#forum25097> > Open standards and tools help focus attention on the business of > publishing content and less on the tools. A company wouldn't have to > release its \tweaks, \overrides, etc. and therefore still keep the > proprietary look of its published music. Tweaks are not preserving a "look", they locally show skills. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
