Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 20021129T103609-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
UnicodeData.txt is used as an input data file for many programs, so
there's no way around it.
It probably shouldn't be. My interpretation, for one of my programs
that uses Unicode, is
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UnicodeData.html there's
a version 3.2.
Hmm, is this file Free? There's a license on that same page:
Limitations on Rights to Redistribute This
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's another limitation in this clause, though: ... and used in
documentation or programs. This would preclude using the files as
part of a work of art, for example. Is that too limiting for the DFSG?
Documentation of *anything*, however, not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's another limitation in this clause, though: ... and used in
documentation or programs. This would preclude using the files as
part of a work of art, for example. Is that too limiting for
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems like a polite letter to the appropriate standards body would
be in order here. The current license is close enough to what is
needed that there are really only minor modifications needed. The
license needs to explicitly allow distribution of
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UnicodeData.html there's
a version 3.2.
Hmm, is this file Free? There's a license on that same page:
Limitations on Rights to Redistribute This Data
[...]
Information can be extracted
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's another limitation in this clause, though: ... and used in
documentation or programs. This would preclude using the files as
part of a work of art, for example. Is that too limiting for the DFSG?
Yes. Just my .02, of course, and IANADD,
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:18:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Why don't we convert the file to a different format? This would
qualify as (complete) extraction of information, and the resulting
file could be free, according to the license.
And BTW, please don't use XML. ;-)
I mentioned
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does DFSG #4 interact with texts like the Unicode data or the FHS?
Is it sufficient to allow distribution of diffs along with the
original sources?
I believe that's certainly true--distribution of diffs should be fine.
I think that DFSG #4 may
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Intuitively, I would guess you could make a program conform to Unicode
without using a derivative of UnicodeData.txt. Copyright applies to
the expression of the facts, not the facts themselves, so you can
still write your own, original
How does DFSG #4 interact with texts like the Unicode data or the FHS?
Is it sufficient to allow distribution of diffs along with the
original sources?
It seems that from a source standpoint the answer is yes. What's
unclear is how this interacts with things built from the sources. I
honestly
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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, I see no way for a text
processing program to conform to Unicode
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 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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
