Re: UTF-12

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Tue Jun 22 2010 - 05:08:21 CDT

  • Next message: Kotoistus: "RE: Publication of Functional Multilingual Extensions to European Keyboard Layouts"

    "Andrey V. Lukyanov" <>
    > > One more question :
    > >
    > > Your page is copyrighted and signed by you (with your email address as
    > > the contact) ; this is absolutely not a problem (in fact it is a good
    > > practice for all publications on the web), but there does not seem to
    > > exist any proposed licence on your page, so the only way to get one
    > > would be to contact you via your displayed email address.
    > >
    > > Can this specification page be licenced by you in an open or free way
    > > on this page, possibly dual-licenced under Creative Commons (CC-BY-SA
    > > : author's attribution required, share-alike) or LGPL (because it
    > > describes an algorithm, assimilable to library source code that will
    > > then be freely modifiable and implementable) ?
    > I added both licenses.
    > See

    The links to the licence texts are definitely incorrect : Wikipedia
    articles are not a valid source for the texts of these licences, and
    you also need to point directly to a versioned text of these licences,
    or even better link to a legal copy of these copyrighted texts
    directly on your site (hosted on the same domain to assert that it is
    owned and managed in the same realm as your document page). Without
    this change, there is still no legal term, and the licence grant is
    weak (mostly inexistant).

    Note that even Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons take a lot of care of
    identifying the licences applicable to their contents very precisely
    (this is a requirement for users of these sites) and point to their
    text exactly.

    Also the term "dual-licenced" is commonly used in the vernacular
    language, but legally, it may be confusive (do others have to apply
    both simultaneously?). It should better be a sentence like:

      This document is licenced to you at no charge, under any of the
    following licences, at your convenience :
      * CC-BY-CA : Creative Commons licence (with authors attribution
    required, share-alike), version x.x (or later)
      * LGPL : GNU Lesser General Public Licence, version x.x (or later)

    For the LGPL, you should also include the warranty disclaimer sentence
    sugested after the end of the legals terms of the LGPL, unless you
    want to assume at least all the legal warranties yourself or
    propose/sell such service. Read the two licence sites for details on
    how to apply these licences to your contents. Note that the LGPL
    allows implementers to include it in their implementation and provide
    it only in its binary form without having to provide the source of the
    rest of their application in which the licenced material is used. If
    you want to be even more lieberal about source code availability to
    further licensees you may also choose a BSD licence as well (the BSD
    licence is compatible with all open and/or free licences, the only
    requirement being the copyright notice with author's attribution).

    Please look at the respective and sites to
    find the exact licence version that meets your requirements, and
    specify the versions number explicitly on your page (if you accept
    later versions specify it as well with "or later version"). For
    example I suggest LGPL v3.0 or later (but you may want v2.1 or even
    v2.0 as the minimum licence)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 22 2010 - 05:11:42 CDT