http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/Scripts.txt
http://www.unicode.org/Public/security/latest/confusables.txt
which, if my understanding of https://www.unicode.org/copyright.html is
correct aren't DFSG, but could be redistributed.
That license seems very BSD 3-Clause-ish.
I suppose it comes down to what "Further specification" means. Does it mean license.txt overrules copyright.html?
You could ask debian-legal for guidance.
Do you think it is ok to upload the package like this?
It's not ideal but if the result is you cannot use those confusables then its the only way forward.
2) Even if the answer to 1 is yes, I can also try to package
confusable_homoglyphs: upstream can download the files from the unicode
consortium if they aren't available: do you think it's better to use
that ability and package the file in contrib, or just put everything in
non-free?
Personally, the latter sounds quite easier, and I would be strongly
tempted by it.
I have a similar problem with SNMP MIBs (thanks IETF). They're not even redistributable so I have a contrib mibs-downloader package.
If the system can do it itself, that's ok but it needs to be something that the user knows is happening. I have had issues with WordPress before where it has links in some of the themes.
So in summary:
* See if license.txt is the actual license and its DFSG free (I think it could be)
* If not, I'd package the files in a separate archive
- Craig
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
🧛