On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:06:12AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 12:35:25PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote: > > > > I think you are missing the points here. > > > > > > First of all, DFSG applied to the standard does not want to change the > > > standard, > > > but wants all to be able to change the text of the standard. > > > > Huh? If I change the text of the standard, I have changed the standard! > > No you haven't, only the standards body in question can do that.
The above is in the context of people wanting to be able to change the unicode.txt file(s). This file cannot be changed without producing something that differs from the standard. "Correcting" it produces an artifact that is distinct from the standard. Is that unclear? > There are all sorts of reasons why you might wish to create derivative > works based on the standard -- a new standard for a different purpose, for > example. Derivative works are covered by copyright. Period. I would advise that you not base a defense of infringment of copyright on the fact that you have only used it to create a derivative work. > Or helpful documentation of the standard for people who are > intimidated by the 'dry' nature of the original... This, on the other hand, would probably be regarded as "fair use", especially as you would need only illustrative snippets to create such documentation. In normal circumstances, embedding the entire table in your documentation would likely not be regarded as fair use, but that is a fact based pattern that would have to be decided on a case by case basis. In this case, it is arguable that the Unicode Consortium's license specifically permits inclusion of the entire table, as it does permit unlimited "extraction". > > > On the other hand, if you wish to create a competitor to the unicode > > standard, say the debicode standard, I see no moral right that you have > > to incorporate, without permission, the unicode standard. You should > > expect to start from scratch! > > Engage brain. Do you think that if I want to create a competitor to, say, > GNU Emacs, that I should expect to have to start from scratch? Or fetchmail? > Or any one of the thousands of DFSG-free packages that are in main? > Brain engaged. OK, according to you, anyone can make a competitor to GNU Emacs and may use the GNU emacs code. Great. So, now consider microsoft visual gnu emacs, which is released under the MS-EULA. If that seems to fail to capture your meaning, then well, suppose I think that the GPL sucks, and that BSD is the one true license. Can I the create FreeOpenBSDGNU emacs with a BSD license (as a derivative work)? What's that? Oh, you mean that anyone may produce a derivative work that is licensed in a manner compatible with the original work's license, provided the original license specifically grants that right? Oh. Yes, I agree with that. Stated in those terms, it is not much of a surprise. Now, where in the Unicode license does it give you permission to create derivative works? The license does say "Information can be extracted from these files...". Oh, and you have to provide "an accompanying notice indicating the source". The license does not say that any of the information in files provided by the Unicode Consortium can be modified (except by "extraction"). This makes it fail DSFG guideline 3. > > > Cheers, > > > Nick > -- > Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >