Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Andrew Bernard 
Hi Abraham,

I sympathise with your employment redundancy and the issues it creates, and 
understand this as a rationale for you re-licensing your fonts under a 
commercial licence. While there is nothing wrong with that, I wonder if you 
have done your market research on this? How many people are likely to buy your 
fonts in absolute terms? It is hard to imagine that there will be large 
numbers, hence this project may only generate a small trickle of cash flow. And 
already it seems to be somewhat alienating the open source users, as judged by 
the activity of this thread.

As a committed open source proponent, and long term user of Linux, I do not use 
proprietary software on my Linux systems, as a matter of principle (see the 
Debian philosophy for more details). So even if proprietary lilypond fonts came 
along, I would not purchase them in any case. There are many hundreds of 
thousands of Linux users who share the same viewpoint – take a look at the 
numbers of downloads of Debian. Some people may not be so strict, but this 
should enter into your considerations.

So perhaps your market is FInale and Sibelius users instead, or Windows 
lilypond users. Again, I wonder if the demand is there to make it commercially 
viable?

Many highly regarded typographers producing fonts that can take up to five 
years or more of difficult labour to perfect often find difficulty making an 
income from sales of even the finest fonts, unless the typeface acquires a 
certain popularity with designers or cult status, but this is not the norm. To 
overcome this, many designers will now offer several faces of a family for 
free. Given that Finale and Sibelius come with fonts out of the box that most 
users seem satisfied with (indeed most users who are satisfied with FInale and 
Sibelius output do not seem to me to be very discriminating about fine 
engraving… [sorry!]) again I wonder where your actual market may lie? Given 
that music fonts are a very highly micro-specialised niche area compared to 
text fonts, it seems problematic to me.

Just some thoughts. Not meaning to sound negative, but rather, adding some 
realism.

Having said that, allow me to publicly praise and thank you for your 
outstanding work on your very fine fonts, full of subtlety and nuance, and 
making them available for use in lilypond.

Andrew


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Andrew Bernard 
Hi Carl,

Since Abraham is relicensing his fonts to make them proprietary (and I make no 
bones about the use of that term), font foundries normally deny you this first 
freedom that you are assuming. I assume Abraham will not supply this freedom 
either. Typically a text font may not be used any way you wish. Of course you 
can use it to typeset whatever you want, but that is not the freedom in 
question. If you purchase a commercial font you are restricted by licence to 
the number of desktops thay may use it, or are restricted to desktop, or web, 
or app, or ebook, each with a different licencing structure. It’s hardly free. 
Take a look at any contemporary font vendor licencing and pricing page. I would 
be suprised if Abraham did support freedom #0.

Andrew


On 28/03/2016, 01:11, "Carl Sorensen" 
 wrote:

0: The freedom to use it as you wish. -- I'd be shocked if Abraham's new
commercial fonts don't support this freedom.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Steve Lacy 
I have found the orignial SIL-licensed files available on the internet, and
have made a new GitHub organization and corresponding repositories for the
fonts themselves.  Please see https://github.com/OpenLilyPondFonts

I've included all that I could find from fonts.openlilylib.org, as well as
Bravura.

I'm happy to add other contributors to the repositories, and would like to
add example usage .ly scripts as well but I just got this going and wanted
to share with people here early.

I know that this might be somewhat controversial (as it seems the original
authors are trying to hide the content) but given that this is fully intact
with original SIL open font licenses, etc., I'm confident that this is the
right thing to do to keep these files available in their open form.

Steve



On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Sharon Rosner  wrote:

> Abraham, FWIW I totally support your decision to go "commercial", and as I
> said before in private, I'm already waiting to pay for your work. I also
> think you could benefit from offering your fonts for use in Finale in
> Sibelius, perhaps using the SMuFL standard.
>
> For those of you who are looking for currently available alternatives to
> the
> stock Lilypond music font, there are a number of font packages available
> using  lyp    (which takes care of font
> installation), namely Bravura, Gootville and Lilyjazz.
>
> Sharon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189046.html
> Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Sharon Rosner 
Abraham, FWIW I totally support your decision to go "commercial", and as I
said before in private, I'm already waiting to pay for your work. I also
think you could benefit from offering your fonts for use in Finale in
Sibelius, perhaps using the SMuFL standard.

For those of you who are looking for currently available alternatives to the
stock Lilypond music font, there are a number of font packages available
using  lyp    (which takes care of font
installation), namely Bravura, Gootville and Lilyjazz.

Sharon






--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189046.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Kieren MacMillan 
Hi Abraham (et al.),

>> Gumroad might be a good option for distribution
>> and it would also allow you to provide the older fonts
>> on a pay-what-you-want model. 

> Interesting... I'll look into it!

Just a personal +1: I use Gumroad to sell/distribute my musical scores. I think 
this is an excellent way to collect all the fonts in one place (which is better 
than scattering them in two or more places, I think), and still allowing both 
free and commercial fonts/variants.

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread tisimst 
tyronicus,

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM, tyronicus [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n189037...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Abraham,
>
> I wish you the best in your future efforts with music font design. You
> definitely have a talent for it and your efforts have been
> commendable.


Thanks for your kind words!


> Gumroad might be a good option for distribution and it
> would also allow you to provide the older fonts on a pay-what-you-want
> model.
>

Interesting... I'll look into it!


> At least until such time as you offer your fonts for purchase, it
> doesn't hurt you to have them out in the open. They have been
> unavailable for about three months. So, I hope that you can forgive me
> for going against your wishes and posting them.
>
> http://filedropper.com/alternate-lily-fonts
> cbeede5e33c8157317fe2178c3dc9157  alternate-lily-fonts.zip [34.5 MB]
>

Well, like I said, I fully understand that this can be done and I do
forgive you. Holding it against you or holding a grudge isn't in my nature.
So, whoever wants to use the files, please enjoy them! That's the least I
could ask. As always, I'm curious to see how people decide to use them in
their own works.

I'll probably make the old site (slightly updated) available with all the
(then) libre files, including the installation/usage instructions. So, stay
tuned!

Hope everyone has a wonderful day!

- Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189039.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Abraham Lee 
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Paul Morris  wrote:

> > On Mar 27, 2016, at 4:13 AM, tisimst  wrote:
> >
> > I have considered Patreon before, but before I jump into that, does
> anyone else have any other suggestion?
>
> Gratipay (formerly Gittip) is worth considering: https://gratipay.com/
>
> It is more radical than Patreon insofar as: "Gratipay is funded on
> Gratipay. We don't take a cut of payments (though we do pass through
> processing fees at cost).”  from https://gratipay.com/about/
>
> Also, they are now organized around teams and what they call “open-work”.
> It’s an interesting model, one that may or may not fit your particular case.
>
> -Paul


Thanks, Paul. I'll look into that.

Best,
Abraham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread tyronicus 
Abraham,

I wish you the best in your future efforts with music font design. You
definitely have a talent for it and your efforts have been
commendable. Gumroad might be a good option for distribution and it
would also allow you to provide the older fonts on a pay-what-you-want
model.

At least until such time as you offer your fonts for purchase, it
doesn't hurt you to have them out in the open. They have been
unavailable for about three months. So, I hope that you can forgive me
for going against your wishes and posting them.

http://filedropper.com/alternate-lily-fonts
cbeede5e33c8157317fe2178c3dc9157  alternate-lily-fonts.zip [34.5 MB]



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189037.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Paul Morris 
> On Mar 27, 2016, at 4:13 AM, tisimst  wrote:
> 
> I have considered Patreon before, but before I jump into that, does anyone 
> else have any other suggestion? 

Gratipay (formerly Gittip) is worth considering: https://gratipay.com/

It is more radical than Patreon insofar as: "Gratipay is funded on Gratipay. We 
don't take a cut of payments (though we do pass through processing fees at 
cost).”  from https://gratipay.com/about/
 
Also, they are now organized around teams and what they call “open-work”.  It’s 
an interesting model, one that may or may not fit your particular case.

-Paul
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Carl Sorensen 
On 3/26/16 5:09 PM, "Stephen MacNeil"  wrote:

>I don't think I read any where that Abraham was making the fonts
>"proprietary" .. I do believe he said "Some fonts are becoming
>commercial". And proprietary doesn't necessarily mean closed source.
>Although in most cases it does, because proprietary software if modified
>holds ownership "usually" with the owner. As for commercial software it
>can be licensed many ways. It's main goal is sometimes revenue. As I
>suspect it will be with Abraham.
>
>Commercial software can still be free software. GNU is not against making
>money.. it's about free software

Yes, and there are four freedoms in free software:
0: The freedom to use it as you wish. -- I'd be shocked if Abraham's new
commercial fonts don't support this freedom.
1: The freedom to study how it works and change it so id does computing as
you wish.  -- I think that with fonts you are always free to study.  I'm
less sure about changing.
2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. --
Abraham has implied that the new fonts will not come with this freedom,
and has asked users to voluntarily not exercise this freedom with the old
fonts.  Certainly there is a clash between Abraham's desires to
commercialize his work and the use of this freedom with the old fonts.
3: The freedom distribute copies of your modified versions to others.  --
I have seen no evidence that some are trying to exercise this freedom with
the old fonts.  Certainly the old fonts are based in part on having this
freedom for Emmentaler.  According to Abraham, one of the major changes in
the new fonts is eliminating any connection to Emmentaler, which is
necessary for his commercialization plans because Emmentaler is licensed
under GNU GPL which requires any derivative works to also be free (as in
speech) software, granting the four freedoms.

You can see RMS talking about it at TEDxGeneva:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM

I do not agree with RMS when he talks about exploitation, and about the
evil intent of those who create proprietary software.  In particular, I
don't claim that Abraham is trying to anything bad in commercializing his
fonts.


>From Abraham's actions (taking down fonts.openlilylib.org and asking
people not to exercise freedom 2) I infer that his commercial model will
no longer support the four freedoms.  Hence I referred to his commercial
fonts as "proprietary".  I admit that this is *my* designation, not his.
But I was specifically trying to draw the distinction between free as in
beer and free as in speech.

I have no claims to Abraham's work on his commercial fonts, and I don't
plan to make any.  But the old fonts are free software, and I believe that
they should continue to be available to users who have depended upon them
in the past.

Thanks,

Carl


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Abraham Lee 
Urs,

On Sunday, March 27, 2016, Urs Liska  wrote:

>
>
> Am 27. März 2016 10:13:20 MESZ, schrieb tisimst <
> tisimst.lilyp...@gmail.com >:
> >Andrew,
> >
> >On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:39 AM, N. Andrew Walsh [via Lilypond] <
> >ml-node+s1069038n189018...@n5.nabble.com > wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >You have understood the situation correctly!
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >I'm really glad you brought this up. To be quite honest, I have
> >considered
> >it and I continue to wrestle with the idea. I am definitely willing to
> >consider this. That way, I can technically continue to offer the fonts
> >freely and the regular patronage covers any continued development as
> >well
> >as user support. In fact, I'd much rather do this if I can feel find a
> >crowd-funding service that I feel good about. I have considered Patreon
> >before, but before I jump into that, does anyone else have any other
> >suggestion? If anyone has first-hand experiences with crowd-funding, I
> >would appreciate hearing from you.
>
> You had this "Donate" button online. Did this generate *anything*?


Relatively little, actually, but I am so grateful to those who were able
to contribute something. Most of the donations, though, came from users
outside the 'Pond, via making my fonts work for other programs or
commissioning new, private designs.

I'll say it again--I am s grateful to for the kindness of those who
contributed. I probably wouldn't still be doing anything related to music
font design without them.

So, what should I do to justify my continued work? I really enjoy doing it,
which certainly helps keep me interested, but I've pondered this question a
long time. That's why I decided to make these licensing changes--so that I
could expand my user-base by supporting an increased number of notation
applications.

There has been an overwhelming amount of support for this change. So, I
plan on continuing forward with my decision in whatever way makes the most
sense for me.

Best,
Abraham


> >
> >Best,
> >Abraham
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >View this message in context:
> >
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189023.html
> >Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> >
> >___
> >lilypond-user mailing list
> >lilypond-user@gnu.org 
> >https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail
> gesendet.
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread bart deruyter 
Hi all,

reading this thread, I've been doing some searching, rather 'googling'
about fonts and lilypond.

Given the current situation, there is a lot of confusion. With this I mean
that right now I find everywhere that you can change the font, of course
fonts.openlilylib.org is closed, which leads us to close to none free
alternative fonts (I might be wrong though, but I know of none, except
Bravura and lilyJazz).

But on for example http://lilypondblog.org/ there are several articles
about the fonts now being in the discussion, with links to
fonts.openlilylib.org, which don't work anymore of course.

Also, the way how to install fonts in lilypond is quite hard to find on the
web. It is an action not every user performs regularly, so people (like me)
tend to forget and have to look it up again. I used to look it up on
fonts.openlilylib.org, but that one is down. So now I found the detailed
instructions on a github page.

I have those fonts downloaded about a year ago, I guess. I don't really
need them at the moment, but because of reading this thread I tried to
install them again now, using todays lilypond code and it took me about an
hour, reading through articles just to find an up to date instruction to
know what to do.

What I want to say is that for an average user, not following this mailing
list, it is hard to figure out what is going on right now. Or to know what
to do if they find alternative fonts.

I understand that Abraham needs time to figure out what he will do with his
fonts in the future, but it I think it is important that the information on
blogs and other websites are updated to the current situation, even only a
warning in the article,  mentioning that the fonts are not available (or an
alternative site where the fonts are) at the moment would be enough. Also
the information about how to install those fonts, in detail, as in step by
step guide, with and without scripts to ease the installation process,
should be more easily found.

grtz,
Bart



http://www.bartart3d.be/
On Twitter 
On Identi.ca 
On Google+ 

2016-03-27 11:57 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska :

>
>
> Am 27. März 2016 10:13:20 MESZ, schrieb tisimst <
> tisimst.lilyp...@gmail.com>:
> >Andrew,
> >
> >On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:39 AM, N. Andrew Walsh [via Lilypond] <
> >ml-node+s1069038n189018...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >You have understood the situation correctly!
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >I'm really glad you brought this up. To be quite honest, I have
> >considered
> >it and I continue to wrestle with the idea. I am definitely willing to
> >consider this. That way, I can technically continue to offer the fonts
> >freely and the regular patronage covers any continued development as
> >well
> >as user support. In fact, I'd much rather do this if I can feel find a
> >crowd-funding service that I feel good about. I have considered Patreon
> >before, but before I jump into that, does anyone else have any other
> >suggestion? If anyone has first-hand experiences with crowd-funding, I
> >would appreciate hearing from you.
>
> You had this "Donate" button online. Did this generate *anything*?
>
>
> >
> >Best,
> >Abraham
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >View this message in context:
> >
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189023.html
> >Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> >
> >___
> >lilypond-user mailing

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread Urs Liska 


Am 27. März 2016 10:13:20 MESZ, schrieb tisimst :
>Andrew,
>
>On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:39 AM, N. Andrew Walsh [via Lilypond] <
>ml-node+s1069038n189018...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>You have understood the situation correctly!
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>I'm really glad you brought this up. To be quite honest, I have
>considered
>it and I continue to wrestle with the idea. I am definitely willing to
>consider this. That way, I can technically continue to offer the fonts
>freely and the regular patronage covers any continued development as
>well
>as user support. In fact, I'd much rather do this if I can feel find a
>crowd-funding service that I feel good about. I have considered Patreon
>before, but before I jump into that, does anyone else have any other
>suggestion? If anyone has first-hand experiences with crowd-funding, I
>would appreciate hearing from you.

You had this "Donate" button online. Did this generate *anything*?


>
>Best,
>Abraham
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189023.html
>Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>___
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread tisimst 
Andrew,

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:39 AM, N. Andrew Walsh [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n189018...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

You have understood the situation correctly!


> 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.
>

I'm really glad you brought this up. To be quite honest, I have considered
it and I continue to wrestle with the idea. I am definitely willing to
consider this. That way, I can technically continue to offer the fonts
freely and the regular patronage covers any continued development as well
as user support. In fact, I'd much rather do this if I can feel find a
crowd-funding service that I feel good about. I have considered Patreon
before, but before I jump into that, does anyone else have any other
suggestion? If anyone has first-hand experiences with crowd-funding, I
would appreciate hearing from you.

Best,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189023.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-27 Thread N. Andrew Walsh 
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 
wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> On Saturday, March 26, 2016, Andrew Bernard 
> 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
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-26 Thread Abraham Lee 
Andrew,

On Saturday, March 26, 2016, Andrew Bernard 
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
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-26 Thread Andrew Bernard 
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.

Andrew


On 27/03/2016, 12:02, "tyronicus" 
 wrote:

The fonts are licensed openly; you are free to keep using them if you
have them. It's the newer versions that may have restrictions, so
there may not be need for concern.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-26 Thread tisimst 
Andrew, et al,

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Andrew Bernard [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n189008...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Hi Abraham,
>
> With your announcement of the commercialisation of your fonts and the
> taking down of the website, there is clearly a lot of speculation and
> uncertainty in the user community. Would you be so kind as to lay out for
> the list a full explanation of your approach going forward so as to assuage
> doubts and clarify the situation, instead of having list members second
> guess your intentions? I for one am quite concerned that the huge effort I
> have invested in scores using your fonts will become nullified.
>
> Thanks!
>

No problem. Thanks for everyone's patience and questions. Let me lay out
some things that should (hopefully) put the majority of questions to rest.
I'll start from the beginning...

Last October I was laid off. Thankfully I had some funds saved up to make
it by until about this last Christmas. Around that time I took to a lot of
contemplation and after some encouragement from others, I made the
executive decision to makes some changes to how I was distributing some of
my fonts. I say "some" because there are a handful that are kind of out of
my control due to their original licensing. Others of my own creation would
become "commercialized". I wouldn't exactly call them proprietary since
virtually everything in a font is exposed to the end user. I decided to set
up a new store to facilitate these changes more effectively than what I was
doing on fonts.openlilylib.org. I was hoping that this could provide a
little extra side income for myself. I hope everyone can be understanding.

What does this mean? It means, as tyronicus and Urs have wisely stated (and
is my intent), that the new licensing is not retroactive. In other words,
if you have the fonts already, there is absolutely nothing I can (or intend
to) do to make you pay the new licensing fees that will be associated with
the new versions. So, Andrew, rest assured that you can keep and use the
fonts that are in your possession.

Now, there's one more curve ball here that I fully understand and I want
everyone else to understand. The copies of fonts previously distributed
under a libre license IS STILL LICENSED THAT WAY. In other words, if that
license allows you to distribute, make derivatives, etc., then YOU CAN
without anyone's permission. I understand this and there's nothing I can do
about it. If I could ask a favor, however, if you like what I've done, I
would really appreciate it if someone comes asking any of you who have one
of my fonts (specifically those that will be under a new license, which
I'll mention below) that you refer them to my new website to acquire a
license to use it instead of giving them the files you have. Acquiring the
license also brings support for the fonts. I haven't yet determined if I
would support the remaining libre fonts. I probably will, but only time
will tell. I have no desire to leave anyone in the dark. I want to help.
I'll just have to prioritize my time towards those who have paid for it.
Chances are that I'll still be able to support everyone. I sincerely hope I
can. Only time will tell if I will be able to do any major updates to the
remaining free fonts.

Speaking of changes, here are the fonts that will fall under the new
commercial licensing:
- Arnold
- Beethoven
- Cadence
- Gutenberg1939
- Haydn
- Improviso
- Ross
- Scorlatti

What will be different about them? The main thing is that they will all be
completely sterilized from the Emmentaler glyphs. Previously, I left the
Emmentaler glyphs in where the font didn't have a replacement. These have
all been removed. I hope to add many of the missing glyphs where possible.
I've tried hard to make sure that there is still a substantial set
available that should cover the majority of normal use cases. Glyphs in the
shape-notes and ancient notation sets will not be included in any of the
commercial fonts. I just don't see any point to that because I'd just be
duplicating the effort there when you can already access them through
Emmentaler.

Everything else will remain free, available through my site. Right off the
bat, I will probably only have an update for LilyJAZZ, but others will
hopefully follow soon.

Hopefully that clarifies things. Let me know if there are further questions!

Best,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189013.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-26 Thread tyronicus 
Andrew Bernard wrote
> I for one am quite concerned that the huge effort I have invested in
> scores using your fonts will become nullified.

The fonts are licensed openly; you are free to keep using them if you
have them. It's the newer versions that may have restrictions, so
there may not be need for concern.

If you do have them, Carl and I are both looking for a copy.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fonts-from-the-former-fonts-openlilylib-org-tp188991p189011.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-26 Thread Andrew Bernard 
Hi Abraham,

With your announcement of the commercialisation of your fonts and the taking 
down of the website, there is clearly a lot of speculation and uncertainty in 
the user community. Would you be so kind as to lay out for the list a full 
explanation of your approach going forward so as to assuage doubts and clarify 
the situation, instead of having list members second guess your intentions? I 
for one am quite concerned that the huge effort I have invested in scores using 
your fonts will become nullified.

Thanks!

Andrew


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-26 Thread Stephen MacNeil 
I don't think I read any where that Abraham was making the fonts
"proprietary" .. I do believe he said "Some fonts are becoming commercial".
And proprietary doesn't necessarily mean closed source. Although in most
cases it does, because proprietary software if modified holds ownership
"usually" with the owner. As for commercial software it can be licensed
many ways. It's main goal is sometimes revenue. As I suspect it will be
with Abraham.

Commercial software can still be free software. GNU is not against making
money.. it's about free software

the question is how Abraham intends to make it commercial.

I suggest people look up Richard Stallman.

or watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEAgx7HgC18

HTH
Stephen
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-26 Thread Urs Liska 


Am 26. März 2016 19:58:01 MEZ, schrieb Carl Sorensen :
>On 3/26/16 12:09 PM, "Abraham Lee"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>If there are no objections, I will provide you with the latest files
>that
>>existed at the time I closed up shop. I can't stop you from hosting
>them,
>>but if I can request one thing, I'd appreciate it. Would you please
>stop
>>hosting when my new site is made
>> public? That would help me a lot since I'm really the only one who
>can
>>provide full support at the moment and I'd like to minimize the number
>of
>>different versions I'm supporting. Thanks!
>
>
>I appreciate your willingness to share the files that existed at the
>time
>of closing up the shop.
>
>I totally understand the issues of not wanting to have to support
>multiple
>versions, and I'd like to be very supportive of you and your latest
>versions.
>
>I'm concerned, though, about people who have successfully used your
>free
>versions, and then find that the newer version of the font is no longer
>free, but is proprietary.  I think that having a proprietary font is
>inconsistent with free software.  

I would say the "inconsistency", if aby, is that Abraham didn't make the fonts 
proprietary right from the start.

I would see it the other way round: commercial fonts that happen to have free 
ancestors.

>I'm not opposed to you having
>proprietary versions of your fonts.  I'm not opposed to having the
>proprietary versions of the font work with LilyPond.  But I'm concerned
>about having proprietary fonts advertised in LilyPond's official
>website,
>documentation, and mailing lists.

Are they advertised in the website or docs? If so that should of course be 
modified by using free fonts as examples. But I don't think that even is the 
case. 

>
>How would you feel about having a git repository of the fonts, with
>clear
>labeling that the fonts are not your latest and are not supported by
>you,
>as a historical repository of the old version of the fonts?

That might be an idea. 

Urs
>
>Thanks,
>
>Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>lilypond-user mailing list
>lilypond-user@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-26 Thread Carl Sorensen 
On 3/26/16 12:09 PM, "Abraham Lee"  wrote:

>
>
>If there are no objections, I will provide you with the latest files that
>existed at the time I closed up shop. I can't stop you from hosting them,
>but if I can request one thing, I'd appreciate it. Would you please stop
>hosting when my new site is made
> public? That would help me a lot since I'm really the only one who can
>provide full support at the moment and I'd like to minimize the number of
>different versions I'm supporting. Thanks!


I appreciate your willingness to share the files that existed at the time
of closing up the shop.

I totally understand the issues of not wanting to have to support multiple
versions, and I'd like to be very supportive of you and your latest
versions.

I'm concerned, though, about people who have successfully used your free
versions, and then find that the newer version of the font is no longer
free, but is proprietary.  I think that having a proprietary font is
inconsistent with free software.  I'm not opposed to you having
proprietary versions of your fonts.  I'm not opposed to having the
proprietary versions of the font work with LilyPond.  But I'm concerned
about having proprietary fonts advertised in LilyPond's official website,
documentation, and mailing lists.

How would you feel about having a git repository of the fonts, with clear
labeling that the fonts are not your latest and are not supported by you,
as a historical repository of the old version of the fonts?

Thanks,

Carl





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fonts from the former fonts.openlilylib.org

2016-03-26 Thread Abraham Lee 
Carl,

On Saturday, March 26, 2016, Carl Sorensen  wrote:

> Dear users,
>
> As many of you are aware, we have lost the repository of the libre fonts
> formerly available on fonts.openlilylib.org.
>
> In order to preserve access to these fonts, I'm willing to host a
> repository consistent with the license of the fonts as they were hosted at
> that time.
>
> However, I don't have the fonts available.
>
> If any of you have a copy of the fonts that you downloaded, please send it
> to me so that I can post it on my repository.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Carl Sorensen
>

If there are no objections, I will provide you with the latest files that
existed at the time I closed up shop. I can't stop you from hosting them,
but if I can request one thing, I'd appreciate it. Would you please stop
hosting when my new site is made public? That would help me a lot since I'm
really the only one who can provide full support at the moment and I'd like
to minimize the number of different versions I'm supporting. Thanks!

Best,
Abraham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user