Re: Video recording of LilyPond talk at Chemnitz

[David Kastrup]

Jeff Barnes <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Jeff Barnes <address@hidden> 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 <edit>LilyPond</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