On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Jeff Barnes If the use of the fonts were covered by LilyPond's license, that would pretty
> much
> kill using LilyPond for anything at a publishing house, wouldn't it?
There's something called "font exception" which says that having
LilyPond's font in the engravi
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Urs Liska wrote:
> Hi Janek,
>
> better don't talk too much about these things.
ok.
I got too excited - sorry.
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-
David Kastrup schrieb:
> The talk in Chemnitz was disturbing in that respect. I was rather
> straight about the need to finance my further contribution to LilyPond,
> and there was no shortage of listeners coming to me after the talk,
> letting some LilyPond problem getting solved by me (so it was
David Kastrup schrieb:
> The talk in Chemnitz was disturbing in that respect. I was rather
> straight about the need to finance my further contribution to LilyPond,
> and there was no shortage of listeners coming to me after the talk,
> letting some LilyPond problem getting solved by me (so it was
Jeff Barnes writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Jeff Barnes 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 LilyPond, it's publis
David Kastrup wrote:
> Jeff Barnes writes:
>
>> I don't think that's necessarily applicable to Lily. The end
> product
>> being distributed is paper (or perhaps a pdf file). I don't think the
>> GPL extends to that, does it?
>
> Of course copyright extends to paper, but not to programmati
Am 2012-05-25 um 02:07 schrieb Thomas Morley:
This is a long discussion. We had similar ones in the past. That's
useless.
I followed the development of 2.15. in every detail, that I understood
and I want to say that due to David's engagement and skill-ranks
LilyPond has improved in a way that
Hi Janek,
better don't talk too much about these things.
They give me an attention I don't deserve yet.
OK, I have plans to 'tweak' several projects to be explicit promotion
for LilyPond.
OK, I'm determined to do some heavy lobbying in an area that _could_
result in a significant boost of LilyP
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Morley
wrote:
> This is a long discussion. We had similar ones in the past. That's useless.
> I followed the development of 2.15. in every detail, that I understood
> and I want to say that due to David's engagement and skill-ranks
> LilyPond has improved in
Jeff Barnes writes:
> I don't think that's necessarily applicable to Lily. The end product
> being distributed is paper (or perhaps a pdf file). I don't think the
> GPL extends to that, does it?
Of course copyright extends to paper, but not to programmatic output.
It would extend to embedded fon
Mogens Lemvig Hansen writes:
> Just some thoughts, sadly no solution. Why don't we find some
> billionaire who can just hire David to do what David does best?
You'll find that billionaires tend to be a bit hard to approach since
there are millions of people with ideas that they could or should
This is a long discussion. We had similar ones in the past. That's useless.
I followed the development of 2.15. in every detail, that I understood
and I want to say that due to David's engagement and skill-ranks
LilyPond has improved in a way that I hardly can believe.
If David isn't payed for his
Tim McNamara wrote;
> On May 24, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Barnes wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors? I
>> see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation
>> donates developers to projects the company have an interest i
On May 24, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Barnes wrote:
>
> Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors? I
> see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation
> donates developers to projects the company have an interest in.
Hmm. OpenOffice for ex
On May 24, 2012, at 1:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of
> something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since
> it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail
> twice.
This in unfortunately mor
On 2012-05-24, at 12:56 PM, Jeff Barnes 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
m
> I suppose the situation might be as follows: source code is freely
> available (on website, github or whatever), but the binaries are not.
> Anyone tech-savvy enough to serve himself doesn't have to pay, but
> "simple users" do have. I think that if the price was low (say, 5$)
> nobody might be
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Jeff Barnes writes:
>>> Just curious. If there wasn't a free as in beer version of a GPL
>>> software package, wouldn't one logically expect a fork? How does GNU
>>> address that?
>>
>> You can't fork what has not
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Jeff Barnes writes:
>> Just curious. If there wasn't a free as in beer version of a GPL
>> software package, wouldn't one logically expect a fork? How does GNU
>> address that?
>
> You can't fork what has not been written yet.
I suppose the
Jeff Barnes writes:
>> Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of
>
>> something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since
>> it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail
>> twice.
>
> Point taken. Won't happen again.
>
>> Please
> Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of
> something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since
> it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail
> twice.
Point taken. Won't happen again.
> Please read
> http://www.gnu.org/licen
Tim Roberts writes:
> Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> Unfortunately, that's not going to happen soon. Even small, local
>> publishers (i've asked some not long ago) are not interested in
>> anything else than Finale/Sibelius. I predict that it will take 3-5
>> years before any major publisher begins us
Jonas Olson writes:
> Some messages seem to drop out and never reach me, but I understand the
> following was written by David Kastrup:
>> > You propose a system with a guarantee that I will not get any payment at
>> > all unless a minimum is met, meaning that I have to finance the whole
>> > mon
Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of
something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since
it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail
twice.
I'll not repeat the points I made in private communication, but for the
sake of ot
f I offend. I'm just a
straight-shooter, that's all (and a newbie to this list).
Best regards,
Jeff
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup
To: Janek Warchoł
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> Unfortunately, that's not going to happen soon. Even small, local
>> publishers (i've asked some not long ago) are not interested in
>> anything else than Finale/Sibelius. I predict that it will take 3-5
>> years befor
Janek Warchoł wrote:
> Unfortunately, that's not going to happen soon. Even small, local
> publishers (i've asked some not long ago) are not interested in
> anything else than Finale/Sibelius. I predict that it will take 3-5
> years before any major publisher begins using LilyPond, let alone
> sw
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Jeff Barnes wrote:
> Wouldn't your time be more wisely spent trying to get corporate sponsors?
> I see a lot more success stories in the open source world where a corporation
> donates developers to projects the company have an interest in.
> As in, 1) convince a l
Hi Jonas,
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jonas Olson wrote:
> Some messages seem to drop out and never reach me, but I understand the
> following was written by David Kastrup:
>> > You propose a system with a guarantee that I will not get any payment at
>> > all unless a minimum is met, meaning
Some messages seem to drop out and never reach me, but I understand the
following was written by David Kastrup:
> > You propose a system with a guarantee that I will not get any payment at
> > all unless a minimum is met, meaning that I have to finance the whole
> > month on my own. This is not ex
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Jonas Olson writes:
>>> When donating, is there any mechanism in place by which funds will be
>>> donated only if some target level is reached by all donations
>>> together? I'm speculating people might be more co
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Jonas Olson writes:
>> When donating, is there any mechanism in place by which funds will be
>> donated only if some target level is reached by all donations
>> together? I'm speculating people might be more comfortable when they
>> know th
Jonas Olson writes:
> tor 2012-05-24 klockan 11:28 +0200 skrev David Kastrup:
>> I mention funding problems for my work at the end of the talk. It turns
>> out that this month has dropped so far in one-time monetary
>> contributions compared to the rather slow uptake of regular
>> contributions
tor 2012-05-24 klockan 11:28 +0200 skrev David Kastrup:
> I mention funding problems for my work at the end of the talk. It turns
> out that this month has dropped so far in one-time monetary
> contributions compared to the rather slow uptake of regular
> contributions that the minimal amount for
David Kastrup writes:
> For those who are interested in my talk about LilyPond at the recent
> event in Chemnitz, the slides are at
> http://chemnitzer.linux-tage.de/2012/vortraege/900>.
>
> Since my talks tend to do more than just reading off the slides, the
> impression may be rather sketchy.
35 matches
Mail list logo
