On 11/15/2016 9:22 AM, Peter Constable
wrote:
Klingon _should
not_ be encoded so long as there are open IP issues.
For that reason, I think it would be premature to place it
in the roadmap.
Peter,
I certainly sympathize with the fact that the Consortium wants to
avoid being drawn into litigation, and that even litigation based on
unsustained IP claims could be costly.
However, it appears relatively settled that one cannot claim
copyright in an alphabet; one of the roles of the Unicode Consortium
in this regard would be to reach a formal decision whether this is,
in fact, an alphabet/script (and one that, based on the usual
criteria of usage) is acceptable for encoding.
Ducking this particular determination serves no-one.
This does not mean that publication would have to be immediate;
there's certainly room for something like an approval to include a
script in "some" future version of the standard, which would allow
all parties to figure out how to deal with any IP issues. (Note that
this would not be a decision, "pending" anything, merely separating
approval of a script proposal from a decision of the contents for a
particular version - something that used to be rather routine in
earlier years).
I would also like to point out that Unicode would be well served by
taking a stronger position on the issue of IP claims on writing
systems, in particular copyright claims. These seem to be unfounded
at least under US law; should Unicode nevertheless allow such
unfounded claims become a way to veto the encoding of any
script/writing system (or script extension)?
As we move on, the number of cases where writing systems, or
innovations in writing systems may be subject to unfounded claims of
copyright may become more mainstream (think national writing
systems, rather than fan-based ones). Already, the emoji are a good
example how, now that the bulk of living/historic writing systems
has been encoded, the "novelties" come to the forefront.
Finally, I really can't understand the reluctance to place anything
in the roadmap. An entry in the roadmap is not a commitment to
anything - many scripts listed there face enormous obstacles before
they could even reach the stage of a well-founded proposal. And,
until such a proposal exists, there's no formal determination that a
script has a truly separate identity and meets the bar for encoding.
A./
PS: the "real" reason that Klingon was never put in the roadmap (as
I recall discussions in the early years) was not so much the
question whether IP issues existed/could be resolved, but the fear
that adding such an "invented" and "frivolous" script would
undermine the acceptance of Unicode. Given the way Unicode is
invested in "frivolous" communication systems of very recent origin
(emoji), that original argument surely doesn't apply :)
Peter
On 11/10/2016 02:34 PM, Mark Davis
☕️ wrote:
The committee doesn't
"tentatively approve, pending X".
But the good news is
that I think it was the sense of the committee that
the evidence of use for Klingon is now sufficient, and
the rest of the proposal was in good shape (other than
the lack of a date), so really only the IP stands in
the way.
Fair enough. There have, I think, been other cases of this
sort of informal "tentative approval", usually involving
someone from UTC telling the proposer, "your proposal is okay,
but you probably need to change this..." And that's about the
best I could hope for at this point anyway. So it sounds like
(correct me if I'm wrong) there is at least unofficial
recognition that pIqaD *should* be encoded, and that it's
mainly an IP problem now (like with tengwar), and possibly
some minor issues that maybe hadn't been addressed properly in
the proposal.
Can we get pIqaD removed from
http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/not-the-roadmap/ then?
And (dare I ask) perhaps enshrined someplace in
http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/smp/
pending further progress with Paramount?
I would suggest that the
Klingon community work towards getting Paramount to
engage with us, so that any IP issues could be
settled.
I'll see what we can come up with; have to start somewhere.
There is a VERY good argument to be made that Paramount
doesn't actually have the right to stop the encoding, as you
can't copyright an alphabet (as we have seen), and they don't
have a current copyright to "Klingon" in this domain, etc.,
and it may eventually come down to these arguments. However,
I recognize that having a good argument on your side, and
indeed even having the law on your side, does not guarantee
smooth sailing when the other guys have a huge well-funded
legal department on their side, and thus I understand UTC's
reluctance to move forward without better legal direction.
But at least we can say we've made progress, can't we?
~mark
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM,
Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
wrote:
More
generally, does that mean that alphabets with
perceived owners will only be considered for
encoding with permission from those owner(s)?
What if the ownership is ambiguous or unclear?
Getting
permission may be a lot of work, or cost money,
in some cases. Will applications be considered
pending permission, perhaps being provisionally
approved until such permission is received?
Is there
specific language that Unicode would require
from owners to be comfortable in these cases?
It makes little sense for a submitter to go
through a complex exercise to request permission
if Unicode is not comfortable with the wording
of the permission that is garnered. Are there
other such agreements that could perhaps be used
as templates?
Historically,
the message pIqaD supporters have heard from
Unicode has been that pIqaD is a toy script that
does not have enough use. The new proposal
attempts to respond to those concerns,
particularly since there is more interest in the
script now. Now, additional (valid) concerns
are being raised.
In Mark’s
case it seems like it would be nice if Unicode
could consider the rest of the proposal and
either tentatively approve it pending
Paramount’s approval, or to provide feedback as
to other defects in the proposal that would need
addressed for consideration. Meanwhile Mark can
figure out how to get Paramount’s agreement.
-Shawn
From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces@unicode.org]
On Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 1:18
PM
> At any
rate, this isn't Unicode's problem…
You saying that
potential IP issues are not Unicode’s
problem does not in fact make it not a
problem. A statement in writing from
authorized Paramount representatives stating
it would not be a problem for either
Unicode, its members or implementers of
Unicode would make it not a problem for
Unicode.
Peter
Received on Tue Nov 15 2016 - 12:21:44 CST