On 2012-12-22 11:48, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012, ListMember wrote:
On 2012-12-22 00:27, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 21.12.2012 22:20 schrieb "ListMember"
<listmem...@letterboxes.org>:
>
> Can you (or someone else, of course) think of a better search
string to locate it?
Go to View Issues, click on the + before the search bix, click
in the appearing entries in the top left for "reporter" and select
the user "Inoussa
OUEDRAOGO" in the list (strangely the user exists twice, I used
the first one) and click on Apply Filter. The second entry should be
the correct one
(you should be able to judge this from the issue's description).
Thank you for that detailed navigation; I got it now. [
http://mantis.freepascal.org/view.php?id=22909 ]
Does anyone know if the license issue has been discussed in any
public maillist/wiki etc.
Reason I am asking is this: Having read (now and several times in the
past) unicode.org's license [
http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1 ] I simply
cannot see what it is that is so (or, rather, at all) restrictive.
It would require every FPC made program to include the unicode license.
By itself maybe not a problem, but this contrasts with the fact that
for years, you could make an FPC program without any additional
licenses, if you didn't use any third-party libraries.
Inclusion in the RTL would make this an obligation for every FPC program.
However, last status/opinion is that this is only so if you were to
copy the files verbatim. If the data contained in the files is somehow
recoded, then it would probably not apply.
We didn't get any answers to our inquiries. But we found that Delphi
also uses these files, and they put forward the above argument on the
Delphi forums when Paul Ishenin inquired.
It boils down to: Only the form is copyrighted, not the actual data.
We hope they are right, otherwise every Delphi program as of Delphi 2009
is in violation of the unicode license :-)
Note that I am not a lawyer, the above are therefor not rigorous legal
truths.
I am not a lawyer either, but I did notice that they were quite pedantic
(or, a better word might be meticulous) with their wording: In the
license text they state that "Data Files *or* Software" must contain
their license text.
Unicode.org guys are as much coders as linguists, so I believe they have
used '*/or/*' (as opposed to '/*and*/' or '/*and/or*/') for a reason.
So, as an addition to what you have said, my take is that including
their copyright in the data alone will suffice --programs/software need
not have to bear the same text.
[Plus, of course, there should be a clear statement that it is
'modified'. And, the documentation should bear license text. Wiki should
do.]
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
