An small note: on Gregoria's web presentation <http://www.anatoletype.net/projects/gregoria/gregoria_5> is said:
"Gregoria is shipped together with the free software Gregorio, made by the students of ENST Bretagne, which provides an alternative and intuitive user interface." Does it mean you're allowed to distribute it? ;-) Olivier 2013/5/20 Grzegorz Rolek <[email protected]>: > > On May 20, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Élie Roux wrote: > >> When I started the gregorio software project, I needed a font that I could >> modify and build easily, so when I saw that Gregoria was not filling these >> needs, I created a new font, Gregorio, from scratch. > > Oh, I thought the main reason for a new Gregorio font was that Elena > Albertoni's deal with the Abbey didn't allow to freely distribute Gregoria > with the Gregorio software. I was thus wondering if some agreement was made, > however, to just use the existing Gregoria design, but only in a form of a > new, more rough implementation that wouldn't have any niceties of the > original, and that could also meet Omega's technical limitations. > >>> Different implementation gives a clear legal status for the Gregorio font >>> software, I suppose, but isn't a particular type design, as opposed to font >>> software, also under copyright in France? Was this an issue? How it was >>> dealt with? >> >> I have to say I'm not sure I clearly understood what you say here... >> According to me, this is no issue, it's like when you make a Time or >> Garamond typeface: these designs exist for centuries, and are in the public >> domain, and so is the design of gregorian chant scores. The particular >> implementation Gregorio looks a little like the particular implementation >> Gregoria (though you'll see many differences), but they both look like what >> has been done for centuries. It's like if you said that EB Garamond >> (http://www.georgduffner.at/ebgaramond/, which I encourage people to use) is >> a copy of Adobe (or Stempel) Garamond, which it isn't... > > Yes, for new implementations of historical designs, i.e., for the so-called > revivals, there's no issue. Different revivals of a Garamond are indeed a > good example of that; what is copyrightable in that case is a particular > execution of font software, not the design itself. But for designs that are > new, or that are only inspired by historical designs and have enough new > stylistic ideas as to not be considered as plain revivals, copyright for > either or both their design and implementation, according to the country of > origin, of course applies. In much all of the world, the usual case is that > it's the font software alone that can be copyrighted, actually, but in > France, as far as I know, type designs are copyrighted as well. > > I think the question whether Gregoria in itself should be considered a > copyrightable design on its own, or whether Gregorio could be considered a > Gregoria's derivative, is really a question of what exactly constitutes an > artistic expression in musical notation. It's even less obvious for a plain > chant notation, where there's no much room for stylization and it's all > really, really subtle. I've raised this issue about Gregoria in particular, > because it's overall look feels slightly more stylized than the one of > Caeciliae, for example, something that even Caeciliae's Matthew Spencer > acknowledges at his site. Furthermore, Gregoria has won a Type Directors > Club's award, not without a reason, I suppose: > http://tdc.org/news/2007Results/. > >> I spent quite an amount of time on Gregorio (though at least 10 times more >> would have been better), and learned many useful things with some expert >> monks; it made me adapt Caeciliae (into greciliae) in a way that, on some >> points, looks better than the original... > > I haven't done much of a comparison between the two, frankly. Their overall > style looks alike and I've just assumed, given the descriptions on the > project's site, that Gregorio was a technical adaptation of Gregoria. But if > you say it's a newly born design with different process and lessons learned, > then I think that's cool. > >> Anyway, this discussion is interesting, feel free to disagree! If you really >> think Gregorio is an illegal carbon-copy of Gregoria, I would be ready to >> delete it, though I disagree with the statement... > > I really wouldn't want to nor make any statements like this at all, the more > I wouldn't want anybody to delete it. In all, the music fonts industry is, > unfortunately, subject of such an in-house-only development and trade > secrecy, and Gregorian chant fonts themselves are such a niche, that it's > indeed hard to make any definite statements that we know or could expect from > the regular font business. > > Thank you, Élie. My kind regards, > Grzegorz Rolek > > > _______________________________________________ > Gregorio-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-devel _______________________________________________ Gregorio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-devel
