Re: why you don't contribute to Mutopia

[David Kastrup]

Glen Larsen <address@hidden> writes:

>> 3. Requisites for the lilypond files
>> Some people are discouraged by the criteria to get the files accepted. For
>> example, they may create the score with Denemo and then export the lilypond
>> file, but they cannot check the quality of the file.
>> I'd suggest them to try to submit their file to the mutopia-discuss list
>> and see if someone can clean the input. Personally, I'd be glad to
>> contribute this way.
>>
>
> As long as the Denemo-based transcriber understands that they may not
> be able to "round-trip" their submission.

Perhaps one should offer a way to offer Denemo files as well.  The GPL,
a key document for the spirit of Free Software, states:

      1. Source Code.

      The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
    for making modifications to it.  "Object code" means any non-source
    form of a work.

and requires works to be distributed including source code.  For a
Denemo score, the preferred form of modification is the Denemo file:
offering the export to LilyPond may be nice for LilyPond users, but it's
no longer the corresponding source.  It's already a derivative like a
MIDI file.

>> A modern web interface may attract more contributions?
>>
>
> Probably, but I've come to believe that updating the content is more
> important.

If you are counting on surf-by fixings (like Wikipedia does), a web
interface is pretty much a necessity.  It does not need to be "modern"
(which is often an alias for "flashy, clunky, annoying"), but it must
not make doing a few fast fixes cumbersome.

-- 
David Kastrup