From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is admin/unidata/copyright.html a free software license? Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 14:30:59 +0300 Message-ID: <83pm3gvdho.fsf@gnu.org> References: Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="406"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ulrich Mueller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 21 13:31:35 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qY38A-000AVF-Vk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:31:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qY37a-0004JF-Mp; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 07:30:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qY37L-0004H9-7o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 07:30:43 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qY37J-00063H-Kj; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 07:30:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=7BA1Tj+F09hgcwSTXO4OWDcumZxtxY+L/avrYm6H9/o=; b=cq0I10+RBry8 bgFDetxWxLuOSjjwpC1OuUB6yelHifnN09cbbLQz5XjbR6J4sWmBrJyWHYBrPuC6Lly19nxZmJjYF jX54ttbGm/BCokTRXRW9WS3PbNgn7o0hEXMZpjIhb7TIswWohhBD0Xj6A5EbMbFt2nKZ93e3EkFXK M8JBwevYDKPrkjNzkJaXZZSyOCE5U45KB0JU0yqPc/EjtXMjf3BPSZONrmOlWW0BBuc7SdfJ11at7 AxzLQoPhkxHCW6GwvpOGaDvnL7pXbVNA5KdZEf/PPMwaWKpuM05FGbG9iq+FAF9FxP43B/eTaKrBB McZ6fWh14MpyUsjXZfi16w==; In-Reply-To: (message from Ulrich Mueller on Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:42:17 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:309060 Archived-At: > From: Ulrich Mueller > Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 12:42:17 +0200 > > [I'd have expected a previous discussion on this, but I failed to find > one in the archives of this mailing list. Sorry if this is a duplicate.] > > File admin/unidata/copyright.html (also at [1]) contains the "Unicode > Terms of Use" which say in section H.2: > > | Unicode, Inc. shall have the right to modify this Agreement at any > | time by posting it to this website. > > This allows the copyright holder to unilaterally revoke the freedoms, > which I believe fails the free software definition [2]: > > "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and > irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the > software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add > restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give > cause, the software is not free." This was indeed discussed, and the conclusion was that it's okay for us to distribute these files, and to distribute data based on those files as part of Emacs. Other Free Software packages do the same. Example: HarfBuzz. As to their reserved rights to change the conditions: when they do (if they ever do), we will reassess this issue. > IMHO it also fails Debian's "Tentacles of Evil" test [3] which says: > > "To be free, the license cannot allow even the author to take away the > required freedoms." We are not part of Debian, so not bound by their policies, such as they are. > I am also surprised that these lists in admin/unidata/ or, in general, > a character set can be copyrightable. (For example, everyone uses ASCII > without thinking about copyright of the underlying ANSI X3.4 standard. > The same applies to several much larger CJK character sets.) So therefore why are you raising this non-issue, from your POV?