Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes:

> --On fredag, februar 11, 2005 02:30:39 +0100 Simon Josefsson 
> <jas@extundo.com> wrote:
>
>> Re 3: The fact that W3C, ITU etc behave similar to IETF is not a
>> convincing argument to me.  The Unicode Consortium permit modified
>> versions of their standards to be published (again, kudos to them!),
>> see <http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html>.
>
> factoid.... the Unicode website you point to says:
>
>> Certain documents and files on this website contain a legend indicating
>> that "Modification is permitted." Any person is hereby authorized,
>> without fee, to modify such documents and files to create derivative
>> works conforming to the Unicode® Standard, subject to Terms and
>> Conditions herein.
>
> Note that you can't modify the documents for anything BUT creating 
> derivative works conforming to the Unicode Standard - and there are 
> documents (such as this one) that you can't create modified versions of.

Indeed, that seem troubling.  And a little confusing, I might add.
What is the "Unicode standard"?  Different version of the Unicode
standard doesn't confirm to each other, after all.

We only reviewed the license for the Unicode Character Database,
because that is the part I needed.

Ok, UTC is not a good example then.

> and later in the same document, for the "Unicode Database" files:
>
>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
>> copy of the Unicode data files and associated documentation (the "Data
>> Files") or Unicode software and associated documentation (the "Software")
>> to deal in the Data Files or Software without restriction, including
>> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
>> distribute, and/or sell copies of the Data Files or Software, and to
>> permit persons to whom the Data Files or Software are furnished to do so,
>> provided that (a) the above copyright notice(s) and this permission
>> notice appear with all copies of the Data Files or Software, (b) both the
>> above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in associated
>> documentation, and (c) there is clear notice in each modified Data File
>> or in the Software as well as in the documentation associated with the
>> Data File(s) or Software that the data or software has been modified.
>
> All that said, I think the Unicode rules seem reasonable :-)

Do you think the second paragraph alone is reasonable?  Then we have
definitely achieved something, for that license appear reasonable to
us as well.  As far as I can tell, for the UCD, the final part of the
page is the complete agreement.  I'll ask them to make sure I didn't
misunderstand the page.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg