Re: Unicode.org files
Daniel Glassey <wdg@debian.org> writes:
> Hi,
> This isn't in Debian yet but a couple of projects (1 LGPL and 1 GPL) I
> am trying to package include files from the Unicode site.
>
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/ConvertUTF.c
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/ConvertUTF.h
>
> The file header is:
> /*
> * Copyright 2001-2004 Unicode, Inc.
> *
> * Disclaimer
> *
> * This source code is provided as is by Unicode, Inc. No claims are
> * made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No warranties of any
> * kind are expressed or implied. The recipient agrees to determine
> * applicability of information provided. If this file has been
> * purchased on magnetic or optical media from Unicode, Inc., the
> * sole remedy for any claim will be exchange of defective media
> * within 90 days of receipt.
> *
> * Limitations on Rights to Redistribute This Code
> *
> * Unicode, Inc. hereby grants the right to freely use the information
> * supplied in this file in the creation of products supporting the
> * Unicode Standard, and to make copies of this file in any form
> * for internal or external distribution as long as this notice
> * remains attached.
> */
>
> My instinct (IANAL) is that this isn't GPL or LGPL compatible because it
> doesn't explicitly permit modification but the phrase 'use the
> information supplied in this file...' is a bit ambiguous.
>
> Should I go ahead and look for alternative implementations or would this
> be accepted in Debian in a GPL or LGPL licensed package?
The UTC has been changing copying conditions after some lobby work.
You may want to talk to them about changing the text on the above work
to match:
http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1
I believe that is a free software license. RMS has reviewed it and
thought it was OK. If people here would review it as well, that may
be useful.
The UTC appear to understand that free software license issue.
If you need help with finding the correct people to talk to at UTC,
please contact me offline.
Technically: consider using iconv or libidn instead. I think there
are technically superior implementations of that code. It is merely
intended as reference code.
Thanks,
Simon
Reply to: