Re: Unicode Character Database
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 07:08:35PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>:
>
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00304.html
> >
> > ...in which Edmund Grimley Evans says it's free.
>
> > Edmund Grimley Evans YES
>
> That YES should be attributed to Thomas Bushnell rather than me.
>
> I don't think it's free, though the licence seems to allow anyone to
> automatically generate a file that contains the same information and
> then release the new file under a licence of their choice, which is
> what the FSF are going to do, according to a recent message in this
> thread.
>
> If possible, it would be helpful to distribute together with the new
> file a script that converts the new file into a file that is (almost)
> identical to the original file, thus allowing people to check that the
> conversion was lossless. Also, if you can't be bothered to patch a
> program that uses the original file to use the new file instead, just
> pipe the input through the converter ...
>
Doing that would be a dubious circumvention tactic in my book
(but perhaps not in any law book, IANAL). It would be simpler,
easier and more exact to distribute the script used for
extraction, then anyone can reproduce the results exactly.
Anyway, take another look at the license (IANADD, IANAL, TINLA
etc.):
The license appears to have CHANGED since version 3.2.0, I base
this on the note at the end saying that the unihan files contain
different terms which are overridden by the new license. The
large unihan files are unchanged since 3.2.0 and were left
unchanged to avoid the server load incurred by redundant
downloads.
It DOES permit verbatim external distribution (this is written
just before the permission to extract data).
DFSG 1 met.
It DOES permit distribution of source code (it is source). It
does permit distribution of compiled form (called extracted by
the license).
DFSG 2 met.
It DOES permit distribution of derived works under ANY license
(including, if you insist, terms identical to the license
itself). It permits large scale modifications big enough to be
extractions under that same clause. Smaller modifications are
not directly permitted, but some form of patch file applied
during compilation probably is (thus using the DFSG 4
exception).
DFSG 3 possibly met with the help of DFSG 4.
The conditions enumerated in DFSG 4 need to be carefully wetted
to see if the DFSG 4 exception can be used.
DFSG 4 needed and possibly met.
There are no discriminations against persons or groups.
DFSG 5 met.
Careful reading is needed to determine if the license
discriminates against endeavors other than creating programs
"supporting" the UNICODE standard.
DFSG 6 needs checking.
There is no requirement for each recipient to execute a separate
license.
DFSG 7 met.
The license is not specific to Debian.
DFSG 8 met.
There seems to be no contamination clauses.
DFSG 9 met.
It is not listed amongst the examples in DFSG 10, but it is very
BSD like with some extra conditions.
DFSG 10 not applicable.
Jakob
--
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
Reply to: