A side note: it seems to me that one of Abraham's root causes for wanting to commercialize the substantial work he's done making engraving fonts is his own financial situation. If this is the case, it might be worth considering some of the crowd-funding mechanisms that support development work. For example, though I've never used it before, Patreon ( www.patreon.com) allows groups to fund developers with a monthly contribution. One or two people chipping in might not amount to much, but a whole lot of people chipping in a bit might indeed make up a substantial supplementary income. (one of my favorite game mods is funded this way, netting the developer about €1k a month).
My concern is that trying to build an income by commercializing fonts that have already been out in the wild for a while seems problematic both from the side of its viability as a business venture and from the licensing side (as well as the social side of a community that's been freely using a resource that now looks to become somewhat less free). Abraham, is this an option that you've considered? On the purely abstract level, I'm much more in favor of working from patronage rather than sales and licensing. Cheers, A On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Abraham Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew, > > On Saturday, March 26, 2016, Andrew Bernard <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What I am concerned about is how would a lawyer or the owner know if you >> were using the open source font or the commercial one? There is no way to >> tell the difference from a published score as far as I would know. There >> are now many concerns. Hopefully the developed will clarify for us soon. >> > > These are valid concerns. I can assure you that the newly commercial ones > will have certain font metadata that are unique to the transition. There > are other things that will tell the difference, too. There won't be nearly > as many glyphs as in the earlier files because I had to completely separate > them from Emmentaler in order to put them under the new license at all. > There's also the OS's creation date that's embedded in each file. Pretty > much anything with a creation date prior to January 1, 2016 is in the > "open-source" category. I'm not really concerned what anyone might do with > them because they are subject to their own licenses and I know what's > legally allowed and what's not. > > The point to all this is to let you know there are lots of ways a lawyer > could find out the needed info, so you'll be covered. > > Hopefully that can bring you some peace of mind over the situation. If > not, please don't hesitate to ask more questions and I'll do my best to > answer them. > > Best, > Abraham > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
