<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 2012-12-22 11:48, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:alpine.DEB.2.00.1212221042040.16205@home.telenet.be"
type="cite">
<br>
<br>
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012, ListMember wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 2012-12-22 00:27, Sven Barth wrote:
<br>
<br>
Am 21.12.2012 22:20 schrieb "ListMember"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:listmember@letterboxes.org"><listmember@letterboxes.org></a>:
<br>
>
<br>
<br>
> Can you (or someone else, of course) think of a
better search string to locate it?
<br>
<br>
Go to View Issues, click on the + before the search bix,
click in the appearing entries in the top left for "reporter"
and select the user "Inoussa
<br>
OUEDRAOGO" in the list (strangely the user exists twice, I
used the first one) and click on Apply Filter. The second entry
should be the correct one
<br>
(you should be able to judge this from the issue's
description).
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you for that detailed navigation; I got it now. [
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mantis.freepascal.org/view.php?id=22909">http://mantis.freepascal.org/view.php?id=22909</a> ]
<br>
<br>
Does anyone know if the license issue has been discussed in any
public maillist/wiki etc.
<br>
<br>
Reason I am asking is this: Having read (now and several times
in the past) unicode.org's license [
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1">http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1</a> ] I simply
<br>
cannot see what it is that is so (or, rather, at all)
restrictive.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It would require every FPC made program to include the unicode
license.
<br>
By itself maybe not a problem, but this contrasts with the fact
that for years, you could make an FPC program without any
additional licenses, if you didn't use any third-party libraries.
<br>
<br>
Inclusion in the RTL would make this an obligation for every FPC
program.
<br>
<br>
However, last status/opinion is that this is only so if you were
to copy the files verbatim. If the data contained in the files is
somehow recoded, then it would probably not apply.
<br>
<br>
We didn't get any answers to our inquiries. But we found that
Delphi also uses these files, and they put forward the above
argument on the Delphi forums when Paul Ishenin inquired.
<br>
<br>
It boils down to: Only the form is copyrighted, not the actual
data.
<br>
<br>
We hope they are right, otherwise every Delphi program as of
Delphi 2009
<br>
is in violation of the unicode license :-)
<br>
<br>
Note that I am not a lawyer, the above are therefor not rigorous
legal truths.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am not a lawyer either, but I did notice that they were quite
pedantic (or, a better word might be meticulous) with their wording:
In the license text they state that "Data Files <b>or</b> Software"
must contain their license text.<br>
<br>
Unicode.org guys are as much coders as linguists, so I believe they
have used '<b><i>or</i></b>' (as opposed to '<i><b>and</b></i>' or '<i><b>and/or</b></i>')
for a reason.<br>
<br>
So, as an addition to what you have said, my take is that including
their copyright in the data alone will suffice --programs/software
need not have to bear the same text.<br>
<br>
[Plus, of course, there should be a clear statement that it is
'modified'. And, the documentation should bear license text. Wiki
should do.]<br>
</body>
</html>