Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Urs Liska li...@ursliska.de 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-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Jeff Barnes jbarnesweb 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 engraving doesn't make this engraving GPL-ed. Does distributing a pdf of Lily's output potentially mean you have to make Lily's source, the .ly file, or any other artifact the user created using Lily available under GPL? of course not. LilyPond is a tool; using a tool to produce something doesn't mean that the created thing is a derivative of the tool. Music produced using LilyPond is not a LilyPond derivative work. In short: don't worry. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com 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 a way that I hardly can believe. If David isn't payed for his work in an amount that he can survive, he's forced to leave LilyPond. I don't want that. So I support him. +1 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 LilyPond's public attention. But: a) Nobody can tell right now if I will be able to realize these projects at all or at the desired level. b) Nobody can tell what impact they would have in the end. Usually the final outcome of such pipe dreams is much smaller than hoped. I wouldn't count on becoming one of the lucky few who initiate a chain reaction. Best Urs Am 24.05.2012 20:36, schrieb Janek Warchoł: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Tim Robertst...@probo.com wrote: Janek Warchoł wrote: ... Urs Liska has plans for making music publishers aware of these advantages - see last messages from Source management tools for lilypond projects thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-05/msg00561.html ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 I hardly can believe. If David isn't payed for his work in an amount that he can survive, he's forced to leave LilyPond. I don't want that. So I support him. Dito. I used LilyPond for paid projects in the past (not that the payment would have fit my hours), I'm using it to make beautiful songbooklets as gifts for my friends (and for myself, of course). The few € I’m giving to David are not much more than a warm thank you. (I'm still grateful to the other wizards that lowercase minor chord names got implemented after my whining.) I'm a member of DANTE (German TUG) and the ConTeXt group, to contribute a bit to TeX's development, and I irregularly throw some 10 € at some other project or shareware (NeoOffice, GraphicsConverter, CyberDuck...). That’s not much, but I know I’m one of the better payers in OS world (besides that few companies that fund big projects). And I promised myself to donate the money that I used to give to my church, insetad to projects that help making the world a better place (most of them not software related). I paid Adobe some thousand € for several versions of their Creative Suite and wouldn’t be able to do the same work in the same (or better) quality at the same (or better) speed using Gimp, Inkscape and Scribus or ConTeXt, but the few projects I still need CS for won’t pay the next version. (And I don’t use unlicensed software.) Greetlings, Hraban ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
David Kastrup wrote: Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com 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 fonts, but IIRC, they are licensed differently. Or at least they would, if there were interest. 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? Or am I misunderstanding you? Does distributing a pdf of Lily's output potentially mean you have to make Lily's source, the .ly file, or any other artifact the user created using Lily available under GPL? What do I have to provide to satisfy the LilyPonds licensing requirements if I wanted to distribute sheet music I wrote using LilyPond to engrave? But most forward thinking publishing companies would give the source code back. After all, their core business isn't editLilyPond/edit, it's publishing. Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :) You don't want to help the competition. Perhaps with the passing of the old guard old ideas will die. It's not a matter of helping the competition, because the real competition is over content. Open standards and tools help focus attention on the business of publishing content and less on the tools. A company wouldn't have to release its \tweaks, \overrides, etc. and therefore still keep the proprietary look of its published music. Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: David Kastrup wrote: Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com 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 editLilyPond/edit, it's publishing. Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :) You don't want to help the competition. Perhaps with the passing of the old guard old ideas will die. It's not a matter of helping the competition, because the real competition is over content. Uh, we _are_ talking about the music publishing industry? The fundamental cash cow for the music publishers is content that has, as opposed to its recurrently retouched and consequently recopyrighted _printings_, run out of copyright protection long ago. For better or worse, modern classical music sells far less than old classical music. Rant at URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-26#forum25097 Open standards and tools help focus attention on the business of publishing content and less on the tools. A company wouldn't have to release its \tweaks, \overrides, etc. and therefore still keep the proprietary look of its published music. Tweaks are not preserving a look, they locally show skills. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 clear that they were actually using LilyPond on a regular basis), and afterwards wishing me with somewhat shifty eyes most sincerely good luck in my quest for funding, and that it would be a real shame if I were not successful with it. I did not win any funders there. That’s too short-sighted. Most people need several impulses for actually doing something. So that he clearly stated, he was in need of funding, wasn’t in vain—not for LilyPond and not for the culture of free software funding in general. At the talk at Chemnitzer Linux-Tage I found Davids idealism to be quite impressive. Although I’m not familiar with the internals of LilyPond, I got the impression that his work is valuable. What he showed he was working on doesn’t exactly match the problems I’m having, but the direction of the development seems to be unrestrictedly support-worthy. In that respect the overall situation kind of differs to that of other projects I’m interested in. I personally am a regular user of LilyPond and I’m still thinking about donating to LilyPond resp. David Kastrup on a monthly basis. What I can afford would be a really small sum, but doing something symbolic at least feels better than doing nothing, I assume … Hannes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 clear that they were actually using LilyPond on a regular basis), and afterwards wishing me with somewhat shifty eyes most sincerely good luck in my quest for funding, and that it would be a real shame if I were not successful with it. I did not win any funders there. That’s too short-sighted. Most people need several impulses for actually doing something. So that he clearly stated, he was in need of funding, wasn’t in vain—not for LilyPond and not for the culture of free software funding in general. At the talk at Chemnitzer Linux-Tage I found Davids idealism to be quite impressive. Although I’m not familiar with the internals of LilyPond, I got the impression that his work is valuable. What he showed he was working on doesn’t exactly match the problems I’m having, but the direction of the development seems to be unrestrictedly support-worthy. In that respect the overall situation kind of differs to that of other projects I’m interested in. I personally am a regular user of LilyPond and I’m still thinking about donating to LilyPond resp. David Kastrup on a monthly basis. What I can afford would be a really small sum, but doing something symbolic at least feels better than doing nothing, I assume … Hannes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se 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 that the minimal amount for being able to afford housing, eating, and health insurance will likely be missed significantly. So I'll have to pitch in again from my private savings, and they are not excessive. If the situation does not rise to the level of at least bare life support soonish, I will not be able to afford working on LilyPond any more. Read the gist of the story at URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-24lang=en#an_urgent_request_for_funding and successive LilyPond Report issues for my reports on the success of my request. 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 that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond full time. Since I invested more half a year of fulltime work on my own savings before even starting to seriously ask for donations, and since people don't pay more than one or two months in advance, the only person really losing money when I stop working on LilyPond is myself. Everybody else gets more developer time than they paid for, and it is not like it is not a total bargain. And it is not like I cash in donations at the start of a month, and then tell people I'll quit right away. As far as I can tell, such a mechanism isn't described in the payment plans you suggest. The plans are clever in themselves, though. For easy access, I quote the payment plan proposals: The idea is to contribute a fixed minimum, and if a specified target is not reached by all contributions, you contribute proportionally up to a cap. Of course, you are free to pick all three numbers yourself, but here are a few models: • [Regular] €25 per month fixed, no cap. This is the payment plan to pick once everything is sailing smoothly and you don’t want to contribute unduly much or think about it unduly much. • [Lifesaver] Minimum €0, cap €250 per month, monthly target €800. That means that if the target (which basically allows me to postpone my decision to work elsewhere) is reached with everybody’s minimum already, you are not billed. This is the option to pick if you don’t want to support a single person as much as keep the LilyPond project from losing me. You do what is necessary to avoid my leaving, but nothing else. Yes, it will be annoying if it turns out you have to pay the cap more than once, but it will also be annoying for me not even to afford survival in spite of highly qualified work. • [Torchbearer] Minimum €50, cap €150 per month, monthly target €1200. This is a model aimed at being reasonably comfortable for you as well as for me if everything works out. Well, so far there is actually only one person on a variable plan. Everybody else has either chosen an unconditional monthly payment (and usually promised to keep it up for a certain period of time) or one-time donations. And since, of course, everybody is free to change his mind at any time depending on the information I provide about ongoing payments, it is not like there is much of a danger that I will go stinking rich because of people unnecessarily paying the maximum amount of money they can afford while on an unconditional payment plan. 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 exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se 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 that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond full time. In my opinion, the cap thing does exactly that. Besides, i think the core of the problems lies elsewhere: 1) most of the people thinks this doesn't concern them 2) many people think i cannot afford / i'm not comfortable with donating 10 euro/month, so i won't donate anything. This is really sad; Lily has hundreds (thousands?) of users and if they donated 1 euro each month (doesn't this sound funny concerning how powerful LilyPond is?) it would make a big difference. 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 exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. I agree with David. best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se 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 that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond full time. In my opinion, the cap thing does exactly that. Besides, i think the core of the problems lies elsewhere: 1) most of the people thinks this doesn't concern them 2) many people think i cannot afford / i'm not comfortable with donating 10 euro/month, so i won't donate anything. This is really sad; Lily has hundreds (thousands?) of users and if they donated 1 euro each month (doesn't this sound funny concerning how powerful LilyPond is?) it would make a big difference. It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. 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 clear that they were actually using LilyPond on a regular basis), and afterwards wishing me with somewhat shifty eyes most sincerely good luck in my quest for funding, and that it would be a real shame if I were not successful with it. I did not win any funders there. I suppose that in real life, I act too polite and understanding to actually be successful at what more or less amounts to rubbing people's noses in their inconsistent expectations. Of course, it does not win me any favors with victims of such behavior from me in mailing lists, but there are bystanders who may get into thinking. I really wish I knew how to deal with that sort of cognitive dissonance more gracefully, but grace has never really been my strong suit. But then check LilyPond's issue database for grace, and you'll see that this is par for the course. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. Yes, what I described would be an all-or-nothing plan. I'm thinking that people might be unwilling to dump money on something that might turn out not to reach any reasonable target anyway. I'll describe it some more in case I wasn't clear. Say, for example, that you are working a different job but would like to return to developing LilyPond full time. You could collect funds with a target that would support you for some predetermined time on the condition that all donations will be returned if the target is not reached (and you will then not leave your job for LilyPond). The analogy would be how no-one would like to pump money into a company that fails anyway, but you might pump money into it if you know that is what saves it. I don't _know_ if people reason like this, but I speculate they might, so I thought I'd put it out there for you to consider. A different idea: Could you partner with a publishing house that might see something in LilyPond that would be beneficial for them. They get all the support they want and they get the bugfixes and features they need the most. In return, they pay you for doing that as well as working on LilyPond in general. You don't have to comment on this. I'm satisfied by just getting to share my thoughts. Jonas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Hi Jonas, On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se 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 that I have to finance the whole month on my own. This is not exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. Yes, what I described would be an all-or-nothing plan. I'm thinking that people might be unwilling to dump money on something that might turn out not to reach any reasonable target anyway. But in this situation the donations reach reasonable target - just look at David's Investors' Reports. Say, for example, that you are working a different job but would like to return to developing LilyPond full time. You could collect funds with a target that would support you for some predetermined time on the condition that all donations will be returned if the target is not reached (and you will then not leave your job for LilyPond). I don't _know_ if people reason like this, but I speculate they might, so I thought I'd put it out there for you to consider. Ah, so it's not your opinion - this is what you think *others* may be thinking? If they /do/ think like that, it would be very unfortunate, because the situation is definitely not like the one you described above. A different idea: Could you partner with a publishing house that might see something in LilyPond that would be beneficial for them. They get all the support they want and they get the bugfixes and features they need the most. In return, they pay you for doing that as well as working on LilyPond in general. That's a good idea, but from what i know no publishing company (at least one big enough to pay David significant amount of money) wants to hear about LilyPond - they're all Finale, Sibelius or go away; we don't care about the quality you provide. There's only one way to change this: publish more good and significant music editions with independent publishers (that's what Urs Liska's doing right now). But it won't make much sense for David to run his own publishing company. best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com 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 large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver 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 switching significant part of the production to it - they are just too set in stone. And that's assuming some improvements in LilyPond. And some significant editions created with LilyPond by independent publishers. I'm probably saying a lot of crude things that offend people. I have a limited knowledge of LilyPond's history and culture. I'm sorry if I offend. I'm just a straight-shooter, that's all i'm not offended - of course i cannot speak for David. (and a newbie to this list). welcome! :) Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 switching significant part of the production to it - they are just too set in stone. That's really unfortunate, because the LilyPond format has some provable and very significant advantages over the Finale/Sibelius formats. It's exactly the same situation as troff and LaTeX vs Word and InDesign. LilyPond, being a text format, can be diffed by source code control and configuration management tools. With binary formats, all you can do is replace the file with the newer version. You can't find the differences between versions, unless the vendor's tool happens to provide that feature. Further, binary formats decay over time. If you had a document from Word 5 from 1992, I doubt very much that Word 2010 could even open it, and it would be hard to find a converter. Because LilyPond is in human-readable text form, it can be read forever, and folks can write automated tools to update old versions to new formats. -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza Boekelheide, Inc. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Tim Roberts t...@probo.com 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 before any major publisher begins using LilyPond, let alone switching significant part of the production to it - they are just too set in stone. That's really unfortunate, because the LilyPond format has some provable and very significant advantages over the Finale/Sibelius formats. It's exactly the same situation as troff and LaTeX vs Word and InDesign. LilyPond, being a text format, can be diffed by source code control and configuration management tools. With binary formats, all you can do is replace the file with the newer version. You can't find the differences between versions, unless the vendor's tool happens to provide that feature. Urs Liska has plans for making music publishers aware of these advantages - see last messages from Source management tools for lilypond projects thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-05/msg00561.html Further, binary formats decay over time. If you had a document from Word 5 from 1992, I doubt very much that Word 2010 could even open it, and it would be hard to find a converter. Because LilyPond is in human-readable text form, it can be read forever, and folks can write automated tools to update old versions to new formats. Unfortunately not all changes in Lily syntax are handled by convert-ly (updating script), so the situation is not as good as we would like it to be. Things should get much better after GLISS (Grand LilyPond Input Syntax Standarization, expected this summer), though. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. Man, I feel ya. I started playing around with LilyPond recently. I like it. As someone who uses a lot of open source software, though, only a few projects have won a donation of my hard-earned bucks. I don't want to discourage you, but I think depending on individual users to support you is not going to work out the way you want. If this upsets you, read the GPL again. Sorry for being so curt and I'll probably get flamed for it, because LilyPond is so highly-regarded (and rightly so). 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 large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver, 2) get hired by them and 3) bingo, your dream job. There are risks. The project could fork, the corporation may have different goals than yours, etc. I'm just saying that if the LilyPond project doesn't support you, don't go down with it. I'm probably saying a lot of crude things that offend people. I have a limited knowledge of LilyPond's history and culture. I'm sorry if 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 d...@gnu.org To: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:53 PM Subject: Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se 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 that they will lose money if and only if it is precisely what makes the difference between you working and not working on LilyPond full time. In my opinion, the cap thing does exactly that. Besides, i think the core of the problems lies elsewhere: 1) most of the people thinks this doesn't concern them 2) many people think i cannot afford / i'm not comfortable with donating 10 euro/month, so i won't donate anything. This is really sad; Lily has hundreds (thousands?) of users and if they donated 1 euro each month (doesn't this sound funny concerning how powerful LilyPond is?) it would make a big difference. It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. 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 clear that they were actually using LilyPond on a regular basis), and afterwards wishing me with somewhat shifty eyes most sincerely good luck in my quest for funding, and that it would be a real shame if I were not successful with it. I did not win any funders there. I suppose that in real life, I act too polite and understanding to actually be successful at what more or less amounts to rubbing people's noses in their inconsistent expectations. Of course, it does not win me any favors with victims of such behavior from me in mailing lists, but there are bystanders who may get into thinking. I really wish I knew how to deal with that sort of cognitive dissonance more gracefully, but grace has never really been my strong suit. But then check LilyPond's issue database for grace, and you'll see that this is par for the course. -- David Kastrup ___ 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: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 other readers, I'll answer your probably worst misconception here as well because it is actually wide-spread. Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. Man, I feel ya. I started playing around with LilyPond recently. I like it. As someone who uses a lot of open source software, though, only a few projects have won a donation of my hard-earned bucks. I don't want to discourage you, but I think depending on individual users to support you is not going to work out the way you want. If this upsets you, read the GPL again. Please read URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney. And after that, read the GPL again. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Jonas Olson jol...@kth.se 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 month on my own. This is not exactly going to extend the time I will be able to work on LilyPond while tapping into my own non-replenishable reserves. I don't see that it would make sense for me to offer a plan where people pay less in case more is needed. Yes, what I described would be an all-or-nothing plan. I'm thinking that people might be unwilling to dump money on something that might turn out not to reach any reasonable target anyway. I'll describe it some more in case I wasn't clear. Say, for example, that you are working a different job but would like to return to developing LilyPond full time. I don't see the point in hypotheticals. They distract from reality. The reality is described in URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-24#an_urgent_request_for_funding, and alternate universes can make their own plans more competently than I would be able to. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Tim Roberts t...@probo.com 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 using LilyPond, let alone switching significant part of the production to it - they are just too set in stone. That's really unfortunate, because the LilyPond format has some provable and very significant advantages over the Finale/Sibelius formats. It's exactly the same situation as troff and LaTeX vs Word and InDesign. LilyPond, being a text format, can be diffed by source code control and configuration management tools. The same could be said for MusicXML. LilyPond is human readable. And, for better or worse, it is programmable. Further, binary formats decay over time. If you had a document from Word 5 from 1992, I doubt very much that Word 2010 could even open it, and it would be hard to find a converter. I am pretty sure XML-based formats will decay as well, text or not. LilyPond, of course, also decays, but being human-readable, it still preserves information that has a chance of getting recovered. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney. Yeah, I've read that before. 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? I'm just guessing, but there are a limited number of people who have the knowledge and skills to maintain a fork. That argument, it seems to me has limited traction, though. Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com 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 read URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney. Yeah, I've read that before. 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. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:37 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com 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 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$) nobody might be interested in forking it. And actually, releasing source for free but binaries for fee makes some sense. After all, build process can be a hassle (Graham, for example, spends much of his time precisely to serve LilyPond binaries to everyone on the planet). cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:37 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: Just curious. If there wasn't a free as in beer version of a GPL software package, wouldn't one logically expect a fork? How does GNU address that? You can't fork what has not been written yet. I suppose the situation might be as follows: source code is freely available (on website, github or whatever), but the binaries are not. Anyone tech-savvy enough to serve himself doesn't have to pay, but simple users do have. I think that if the price was low (say, 5$) nobody might be interested in forking it. Personally, I do not like this milk the less computer-savvy people approach. Ardour does some things that way IIRC. I have done quite a bit of GPLed contract work (and it was me who spelled out the release under GPL and who was responsible for release into the public): people pay to get a particular job done. And not every job consists of licensing software: some people actually need to _use_ it. If nobody does the job, it does not get done, simple as that. And if it gets released under the GPL, they have a chance of finding other contractors and/or having some community maintenance happen for free. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 interested in forking it. All of the donations I've made to open source projects have been in the $25 range. And actually, releasing source for free but binaries for fee makes some sense. Agreed. Especially on platforms where build environments aren't free or installed. Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
On 2012-05-24, at 12:56 PM, Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com 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 mind unstable 2.odd. With fewer users updating, bugs would not be found and features not explored, appreciated, and improved. I am not sure how much I would be willing to pay for Lilypond. Can justify to my wife paying, say, $20 for some free software that I use occasionally and do not make any profit on? I think I would be slightly more comfortable making a donation to Lilypond rather than to David Kastrup, even if in the end the money goes to the same purse. Maybe the reason is that my donation would be in appreciation of what works, not payment towards future features. Just some thoughts, sadly no solution. Why don't we find some billionaire who can just hire David to do what David does best? Regards, Mogens ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 more or less enforced by the list server being configured to not set replies to go back to the list; it is configured to send replies back to the poster to whom one is responding. I've asked about this in the past, since this this is the only mailing list I have seen configured this way in nearly 20 years of using the Internet, but only succeeded in arousing the ire of one or two people and being told this is the way it is, tough cookies. The end result will be a lot of e-mails that the list will never see and will never get archived, and a lot of unnecessary duplicate e-mails. I'll not repeat the points I made in private communication, but for the sake of other readers, I'll answer your probably worst misconception here as well because it is actually wide-spread. Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes: It tends to feel like the classical case of Somebody Else's Problem, and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. Man, I feel ya. I started playing around with LilyPond recently. I like it. As someone who uses a lot of open source software, though, only a few projects have won a donation of my hard-earned bucks. I don't want to discourage you, but I think depending on individual users to support you is not going to work out the way you want. If this upsets you, read the GPL again. Please read URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney. And after that, read the GPL again. Another part of this misconception is that my bucks are harder to earn then your bucks, so I ain't givin' them to ya. (Says the hypocrite who hasn't gotten around to donating himself...) If you use open source software, you should treat it as free-as-in-speech and not free-as-in-beer. I don't usually donate just for a trial of some software, but if I use it a lot it is incumbent on me to donate unless that is clearly not necessary (e.g., the developer says I don't need your money, use it with my blessing. The software doesn't have to win your financial support- your regular use of free software means it is of value to you and you should contribute. As someone else pointed out, if every one of Lilypond's 100,000 users donated just €1 a year that would probably cover David's full time employment on Lilypond development and probably some other costs. Instead, like public TV in the US, only a fraction of customers contribute (says the hypocrite who hasn't gotten around to donating himself...). It's always interesting that people who will pay $2000 for a computer balk at paying $5 for open source software. Lilypond lacks a centralized system for making contributions, which may be part of the discomfort as centralized systems give the illusion of accountability and reliability even though even casual thought will reveal what nonsense that is. Given the international nature of the project, I suspect setting up a centralized funding system would be a very complex undertaking and would involve a lot of lawyer time, massive issues with taxation, etc. The current model is just to send money directly to the developer- mainly David, since he's the one willing to make himself available to the project full-time. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 example?* As in, 1) convince a large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver, 2) get hired by them and 3) bingo, your dream job. There are risks. The project could fork, the corporation may have different goals than yours, etc. Those are not risks. They are guarantees. And most assuredly few corporate sponsors would permit the project to be published under the GPL. The notion of owing intellectual property has become so very deeply ingrained in corporate culture around the world that the GPL is a dealbreaker. The notion of users having freedom is anathema to most. *That is sarcasm, in case you have not done your homework about OpenOffice. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 in. Hmm. OpenOffice for example?* Would you stipulate that there are successful GPL projects involving corporate sponsors? As in, 1) convince a large publishing house they'd be better off relying on an open source music engraver, 2) get hired by them and 3) bingo, your dream job. There are risks. The project could fork, the corporation may have different goals than yours, etc. Those are not risks. They are guarantees. And most assuredly few corporate sponsors would permit the project to be published under the GPL. The notion of owing intellectual property has become so very deeply ingrained in corporate culture around the world that the GPL is a dealbreaker. My company, a large cable provider in the US, uses a lot of GPL code in its distributed products. It also donates developer time to many of those projects. The notion of users having freedom is anathema to most. That may be true of some, perhaps most as you put it. But I think the deal breaker is more along the lines of losing some perceived competitive advantage by having to give back optimizations or improvements to the codebase. 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? One doesn't need to make Lily source code notices on every piece of music they distribute engraved with LilyPond, do they? Also, do I understand correctly that a company could make changes to the source code and use it without giving it back? They probably should to be good citizens, but are they required to do so if they don't distribute LilyPond according to GPL? But most forward thinking publishing companies would give the source code back. After all, their core business isn't LilyPad, it's publishing. Somebody help me with my wrong thinking. :) Regards, Jeff ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
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 work in an amount that he can survive, he's forced to leave LilyPond. I don't want that. So I support him. Nothing more to say. -Harm ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz
Mogens Lemvig Hansen mog...@kayju.com 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 be financing. They would not be billionaires if it would faze them. In the last LilyPond report, I cited Grapes of Wrath: While one-time payments have declined somewhat, some more people pitched in with monthly payments for several months (3 to 12 months). A surprisingly large ratio of one or more-time contributors have not committed to regular plans because they don’t feel that their own financial/job situation allows them to plan ahead that far. I was reminded of Steinbeck’s ``Grapes of Wrath’’ where Ma Joad, after getting credit in a store from a clerk rather than the store, says `I’m learnin’ one thing good,’ she said. `Learnin’ it all a time, ever’ day. If you’re in trouble or hurt or need— go to poor people. They’re the only ones that’ll help— the only ones.’ Of course, the analogy is not all that fitting since I am appealing to those who have a fortune, namely that of being able to feel excited about a project like LilyPond. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
