Re: Is admin/unidata/copyright.html a free software license?

[Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>]

>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 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.

Could you point me to the previous discussion please?

I don't disagree that these files can be distributed (at least
currently). However, merely being distributable is a much lower standard
than being free.

> 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.

That's not what the free software definition says.

>> 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?

But is it a non-issue? Why would Unicode claim copyright for these files
if they aren't copyrightable?