Re: location of UnicodeData.txt
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 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.
Umm, yes. That's exactly why the text of a standard should be free.
You seem to be confusing the "should be" and "is" discussions.
> > > 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.
You seem to have hit the wrong button when you tried to engage your brain.
Why would "create a competitor" have to mean "create a competitor under
a conflicting license"? The GNU Emacs license allows you to create a
competitor without starting from scratch. That is what makes it free!
> 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.
I don't think he meant that at all. You're confusing "may" with "should
expect to be able to". The whole "provided..." clause misses the point.
Laws do not define morality.
Now, why do you think that it would not be a good thing for the text of
the text of the Unicode license to be free? Your only answer so far
seems to be "because it currently isn't".