On 6/9/2012 11:54 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I agree with Philippe on this one. It's not up to Unicode to decide
> whether a script is "practical," easy to read, easy to write, etc. But
> if there is any sort of intellectual property claim that imposes any
> conditions on the use of the script, including describing or encoding
> it, developing fonts or code charts, or anything else, it should be a
> complete non-starter as far as Unicode is concerned.
>
People may make claims all they want, but it's a question of whether
such claims are enforceable. To give advice on that would be a matter
for legal counsel. I would be careful to avoid any absolute statements
that would appear to allow any "claims", however tenuous, to stand in
the way of legitimate encoding - especially if this is in support of a
living script.
This is different from the case of logos, where it's well established
that protections for claims do exist and are enforceable under trademark
and other laws.
A./
Received on Sat Jun 09 2012 - 15:01:32 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Jun 09 2012 - 15:01:32 CDT