On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:20:26PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
So, can a standard be DSFG free?
Strictly speaking, no. A standard is an idea, or a collection of ideas.
There are many ways to express an idea, so there are many ways to
express a standard. Some of these expressions may receive
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:33:08PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
However, if that data can only be usefully expressed in precisely that way
(that is, reverse-engineering those algorithms would regenerate the file)
then the copyright on the file is probably unenforceable.
Exactly. If there is no
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:20:26PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
So, can a standard be DSFG free?
Strictly speaking, no. A standard is an idea, or a collection of ideas.
There are many ways to express an idea, so there are many ways to
express a standard. Some of these
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 05:18:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:33:08PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
However, if that data can only be usefully expressed in precisely that way
(that is, reverse-engineering those algorithms would regenerate the file)
then the
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:23:56PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
The correct question, I think, is Can a standards _document_ be DFSG
free? I think it could be, but most probably are not; a standards
document is usually copyrighted by the organization that governs the
standard, and in the
Craig Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:20:26PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
So, can a standard be DSFG free?
Strictly speaking, no. A standard is an idea, or a collection of ideas.
There are many ways to express an idea, so there are
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would venture to guess that even with a perfect oracle, it would be
essentially imposible to reverse engineer the Unicode data files, much
less the ancillary algorithms. That is, a 32 bit search space with at
least 36 properties to be discovered per data
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell writes:
The copyright is on the *file* and not on the data,...
Did I say it was?
...and certainly not on the *information* which the file contains.
An instantiation of that information could be considered a derivative of
the
Thomas Bushnell writes:
I believe at this point you are raising FUD.
I believe I was attempting to discuss the subject calmly and rationally
while avoiding inflammatory language such as you are raising FUD.
The license on Unicode explicitly grants permission to make such
derivatives, if they
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license on Unicode explicitly grants permission to make such
derivatives, if they even are such, in free programs.
Reference? I don't recall seeing this mentioned earlier in this thread,
and it is not at all clear from a quick perusal of the
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnel writes:
A program can use the algorithms specified by Unicode without any copying
of Unicode, and can thus be entirely free.
What is UnicodeData.txt for? Do programs actually use it in some way, or
is it just a reference for
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
starner writes:
If you run most algorithms specified by Unicode, like normalization,
capitalization or the bidirectional algorithm, you do it with the use of
the data from UnicodeData.txt, whether you copied it from there or copied
it from the
Thomas Bushnell writes:
The copyright is on the *file* and not on the data,...
Did I say it was?
...and certainly not on the *information* which the file contains.
An instantiation of that information could be considered a derivative of
the copyrighted work. My second paragraph explains one
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 08:12:57AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Thomas Bushnell writes:
The copyright is on the *file* and not on the data,...
Did I say it was?
...and certainly not on the *information* which the file contains.
An instantiation of that information could be considered a
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] [021203 17:35]:
OK, now, supposing that the unicode license is found to be non-DSFG
free, and hence that UnicodeData.txt is non-free.
Suppose a program implements either unicode collation, regular expressions,
Thomas Bushnel writes:
A program can use the algorithms specified by Unicode without any copying
of Unicode, and can thus be entirely free.
What is UnicodeData.txt for? Do programs actually use it in some way, or
is it just a reference for programmers, like the description of a protocol?
--
John Hasler writes:
Thomas Bushnel writes:
A program can use the algorithms specified by Unicode without any copying
of Unicode, and can thus be entirely free.
What is UnicodeData.txt for? Do programs actually use it in some way, or
is it just a reference for programmers, like the
starner writes:
If you run most algorithms specified by Unicode, like normalization,
capitalization or the bidirectional algorithm, you do it with the use of
the data from UnicodeData.txt, whether you copied it from there or copied
it from the Unicode book.
That's what I thought. Therefor
* Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] [021203 17:35]:
OK, now, supposing that the unicode license is found to be non-DSFG
free, and hence that UnicodeData.txt is non-free.
Suppose a program implements either unicode collation, regular expressions,
or any of the other things mentioned above.
But they clearly do not want you to modify anything, including
character name! Character name is a searchable field, which some
applications may need.
It's an English field, for which there is a canonical translation
for French, and there should be translation for other languages.
But, on
If a system simply declared a section of data to be
UniCode data, and made no attempt to comprehend the contents, it
probably would not need to have access to the contents of Unicode.txt.
Just like if a system simply declared a section of data to be
code complaint to Fortran-2026, and if
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, now, supposing that the unicode license is found to be non-DSFG
free, and hence that UnicodeData.txt is non-free.
Suppose a program implements either unicode collation, regular expressions,
or any of the other things mentioned above.
(collation is
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
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:10:09AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] [021130 18:43]:
Huh? If I change the text of the standard, I have changed the standard!
For example, if I have :
0332;COMBINING LOW LINE;Mn;220;NSM;N;NON-SPACING UNDERSCORE
and change
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:16:07AM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:06:12AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
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
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 07:30:57PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:16:07AM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:06:12AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
There are all sorts of reasons why you might wish to create derivative
works based on the standard --
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is straying terribly far from field, but are you saying that it is
morally correct that the debian project modify standards without
permission of the standards body? Or that it is morally correct to
incorporate (portions of) other programs in your
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 10:43:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But, I suspect that any sane judge would also say that extraction for
the purpose of license laundering is not implied. That is, you could
not take the Unicode Consortium's file, apply cat to it, and relicense
the result under BSD (for example).
Sure, but
But they clearly do not want you to modify anything, including
character name! Character name is a searchable field, which some
applications may need.
It's an English field, for which there is a canonical translation
for French, and there should be translation for other languages.
The
* Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] [021130 18:43]:
Huh? If I change the text of the standard, I have changed the standard!
For example, if I have :
0332;COMBINING LOW LINE;Mn;220;NSM;N;NON-SPACING UNDERSCORE
and change this to
0332;NON-COMBINING LOW LINE;Mn;220;NSM;N;SPACING
Giacomo Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I never read ISO C
In this case it's a bad idea to write C programs. You should use a
programming language where the standardization committee fought with
ISO to publish the text of the standard under a free (even libre)
license. ;-)
Are database
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 11:37:41AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] [021128 03:35]:
So, according to Branden, international standards are supposed to allow
debian the right to modify them and to distribute the modified versions.
Absent said permission, which
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
* Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] [021128 03:35]:
So, according to Branden, international standards are supposed to allow
debian the right to modify them and to distribute the modified versions.
Absent said permission, which is hardly ever going to be given, they
must be considered non-free.
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 02:58:38PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
UnicodeData is different, because we need the data in our program,
not only the ideas. And it this case we see that as software!
Maybe you're right that we don't really need the
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:53:00 -0500
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
I see no problem with this license as far as it goes, but it
doesn't go far enough.
There is no permission granted to make modifications (and
Tim Dijkstra wrote:
So doesn't this mean it's time to change the social contract or the DFSG
(are standards software?) to make an exception for 'documents and files
describing standards'. It's clear that we can't live without them (hence
should be in main), and it is also clear there is no use in
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:55:31 +0100
Giacomo Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, we can live without standard in main. I never read ISO C and POSIX
standards (because these was non free (like free beer)). But
I program GNU/Linux in C. Also the RFC are not enough free, but I see
no problem
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 02:58:38PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
UnicodeData is different, because we need the data in our program,
not only the ideas. And it this case we see that as software!
Maybe you're right that we don't really need the rfc's in main. They
actually are now and it would
Richard Braakman writes:
But do you think it's _okay_ for such a file not to be free?
/usr/share/perl/5.8.0/unicore/UnicodeData.txt, which I assume is the file
you are talking about, contains just a table of data. Unless its creation
involved creativity rather than just sweat of the brow it is
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:45:48AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Richard Braakman writes:
But do you think it's _okay_ for such a file not to be free?
/usr/share/perl/5.8.0/unicore/UnicodeData.txt, which I assume is the file
you are talking about, contains just a table of data. Unless
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 06:07:57PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
However, in these perverse times, where companies patent hyperlinks, I
honestly have no idea whether Unicode itself is owned but licensed
royalty-free, or as free as say, ASCII or English.
These days I wouldn't be eager to rely
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 07:33:43PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
These days I wouldn't be eager to rely on the limits of copyrightability.
CNN.com - Composer pays for piece of silence - Sep. 23, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/uk.silence/
It's worth pointing out that
Emile van Bergen writes:
I'd say that the definition of Unicode, heck even ASCII, involves a fair
amount of creativity.
I don't doubt that the development of Unicode involved creativity: under
current law it probably qualifies as a patentable invention. Inventions
and ideas, however, cannot be
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:47:52AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Emile van Bergen writes:
I'd say that the definition of Unicode, heck even ASCII, involves a fair
amount of creativity.
I don't doubt that the development of Unicode involved creativity: under
current law it probably
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:57:35 +0200
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 02:58:38PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
UnicodeData is different, because we need the data in our program,
not only the ideas. And it this case we see that as software!
Maybe you're
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 07:02:07PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:47:52AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
I'm arguing that the _creation_ _of_ _that_ _table_
involved no creativity, not that the invention of Unicode didn't.
Well, so you say that if I write a novel, all
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:47:02PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 07:02:07PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:47:52AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Is it possible to create other Unicode tables that serve the same purpose
as that one
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:45:48AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Richard Braakman writes:
But do you think it's _okay_ for such a file not to be free?
/usr/share/perl/5.8.0/unicore/UnicodeData.txt, which I assume is the file
you are talking about, contains just a table of data. Unless its
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:46:04PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 07:33:43PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
These days I wouldn't be eager to rely on the limits of copyrightability.
CNN.com - Composer pays for piece of silence - Sep. 23, 2002
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 07:02:07PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:47:52AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Emile van Bergen writes:
I'd say that the definition of Unicode, heck even ASCII, involves a fair
amount of creativity.
I don't doubt that the
Paul Hampson writes:
Patents are civil actions, while copyright violation is criminal,...
In the US copyright infringement is usually (not always anymore, but still
usually) civil as well.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
I am developping a (simple) application that needs to have
UnicodeData.txt file available. Of course there are more applications
that need this file. So far I found these two:
perl-modules: /usr/share/perl/5.8.0/unicore/UnicodeData.txt
console-data: /usr/share/unidata/UnicodeData-2.1.8.txt (way
Radovan Garabik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am developping a (simple) application that needs to have
UnicodeData.txt file available. Of course there are more applications
that need this file. So far I found these two:
perl-modules: /usr/share/perl/5.8.0/unicore/UnicodeData.txt
console-data:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:50:10AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Heh. There's another:
miscfiles: /usr/share/misc/unicode.gz
The current version is Unicode 3.1.1.
According to http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UnicodeData.html there's
a version 3.2.
Hmm, is this file Free?
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 07:59:00PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:50:10AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Heh. There's another:
miscfiles: /usr/share/misc/unicode.gz
The current version is Unicode 3.1.1.
According to
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 03:54:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 07:59:00PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:50:10AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Heh. There's another:
miscfiles: /usr/share/misc/unicode.gz
The current
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
I see no problem with this license as far as it goes, but it doesn't go
far enough.
There is no permission granted to make modifications (and distribute
modified versions). (DFSG 3)
So, according to Branden, international
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
So, according to Branden, international standards are supposed to allow
debian the right to modify them and to distribute the modified versions.
Absent said permission, which is hardly ever going to be given, they
must be
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:53:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
I see no problem with this license as far as it goes, but it doesn't go
far enough.
There is no permission granted to make modifications (and distribute
Does this mean every unicode text editor belongs in contrib (depends on
something non-free)?
Many (perhaps all) RFCs are non-free as well; does that mean that
compliant implementations must go into contrib or non-free?
The problem is, every character in Unicode, all 70,000 of them, has a
[Jim trimmed from CC; I'm not sure why his address was in your M-F-T.]
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 09:43:33AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are documents like the DFSG distrubuted with
Debian?
Well, certainly some documents like the DFSG might be distributed as
part of the Debian
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 05:00:55PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is, every character in Unicode, all 70,000 of them, has a
distinct set of properties. UnicodeData.txt is basically a listing of
those properties. If it is a copyrightable work,
That's a big if, and the answer may be
66 matches
Mail list logo
