Glen Larsen <[email protected]> writes:
>> 3. Requisites for the lilypond files
>> Some people are discouraged by the criteria to get the files accepted. For
>> example, they may create the score with Denemo and then export the lilypond
>> file, but they cannot check the quality of the file.
>> I'd suggest them to try to submit their file to the mutopia-discuss list
>> and see if someone can clean the input. Personally, I'd be glad to
>> contribute this way.
>>
>
> As long as the Denemo-based transcriber understands that they may not
> be able to "round-trip" their submission.
Perhaps one should offer a way to offer Denemo files as well. The GPL,
a key document for the spirit of Free Software, states:
1. Source Code.
The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source
form of a work.
and requires works to be distributed including source code. For a
Denemo score, the preferred form of modification is the Denemo file:
offering the export to LilyPond may be nice for LilyPond users, but it's
no longer the corresponding source. It's already a derivative like a
MIDI file.
>> A modern web interface may attract more contributions?
>>
>
> Probably, but I've come to believe that updating the content is more
> important.
If you are counting on surf-by fixings (like Wikipedia does), a web
interface is pretty much a necessity. It does not need to be "modern"
(which is often an alias for "flashy, clunky, annoying"), but it must
not make doing a few fast fixes cumbersome.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
