Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
Vikki McDonough via Unicode <[email protected]> Wed, 27 May 2026 08:54:58 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAPwTRx9Ni55nWm5KHM-N4Hc8dwA4b3tu6eiCM=mpQS8+upDoEQ@mail.gmail.com> |
--000000000000c3f6050652ccf57a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why, then, did Tengwar and Cirth manage to get on the SMP roadmap and stay there until very recently (something *none* of the other conlang scripts managed), if they faced a uniquely-hostile IP situation? - Vikki McDonough =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F On Tue, May 26, 2026, 5:57=E2=80=AFPM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode < [email protected]> wrote: > On 5/26/26 6:32 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode wrote: > > Unicode's "hostility" to conlang scripts has actually been > > *decreasing* over the years. Such proposals used to be rejected > > outright for not being notable or not having a large enough user > > community. That is not the case anymore. Klingon, Sitelen Pona, > > Tengwar, and Cirth have all actually been recognized as having a large > > enough user community; the objections being raised now are actually > > much more complicated issues to navigate: copyright status and stabilit= y. > > > > Unicode does not want to include Klingon without a letter from > > Paramount's legal department stating that they will not sue anyone who > > implements it, but Paramount simply does not care enough to spend > > legal resources on that. Tengwar and Cirth are in the hands of the > > Tolkien estate, which is extremely controlling about the use of their > > intellectual property and is not going to give permission to encode > > them. And while it's legally questionable whether a writing system can > > actually be copyrighted, Unicode does not have the resources to find ou= t. > > It should be noted, though, that the only *official* reason for > rejection of Klingon is still "because we don't want to be associated > with Those Kinds of People." The proposal to reject Klingon > (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html), adopted by > Unicode (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183.htm) mentions nothing > about IP problems or lack of usage. This remains the reason it is on > the "Not to be Encoded" list, even though (at the suggestion of Ken > Whistler https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html) > there was a proposal not to approve it, but just to remove it from the > "No" list (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf) > Removing it from the "Not Encoded" list would have been a way to signal > a lessening of hostility without actually doing anything (and thus > without running risks of IP problems.) > > Has the hostility been decreasing over the years? Perhaps, even > probably. There has been unofficial recognition that "lack of usage" is > no longer a valid argument against Klingon (after a new proposal, > https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf showed a great > deal of usage.) But there still seems to be something in the "dignity > argument" (Klingon is beneath the dignity of Unicode, because only nerds > speak it), brought down explicitly in the Proposal to Reject linked > above and on this mailing list > https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2021-September/009589.html > > AFAIK, Sitelen Pona is, indeed, insufficiently fleshed out (but I may > not be well-enough informed), and the Tolkien estate has come out > explicitly against the encoding of Cirth and Tengwar (which I think > deserve encoding more than Klingon does, but whose IP situation is > rather more clear against it.) > > Several new writing systems which have been encoded are no older than > some conlang scripts, like Adlam (1989), Osage (2006), Signwriting > (1974) (and honestly, the IP status of some of them is not clear either, > though it's definitely an issue in things like Blissymbolics and I think > maybe Mandombe), so it clearly isn't a matter of needing to be an *old* > established system... just an established one, and these did demonstrate > usage and a community. > > So, yeah, the hostility may be on the decline. It's still the official > stance, though. > > ~mark > > --000000000000c3f6050652ccf57a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto"><div><br></div><div>Why, then, did Tengwar and Cirth mana= ge to get on the SMP roadmap and stay there until very recently (something = *none* of the other conlang scripts managed), if they faced a uniquely-host= ile IP situation?</div><div data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"= ltr"><div><br></div>- Vikki McDonough =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A= =A7=EF=B8=8F</div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_con= tainer"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, May 26, 2026, 5:57=E2= =80=AFPM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= icode.org">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote cla= ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa= dding-left:1ex">On 5/26/26 6:32 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode wrote:<= br> > Unicode's "hostility" to conlang scripts has actually be= en <br> > *decreasing* over the years. Such proposals used to be rejected <br> > outright for not being notable or not having a large enough user <br> > community. That is not the case anymore. Klingon, Sitelen Pona, <br> > Tengwar, and Cirth have all actually been recognized as having a large= <br> > enough user community; the objections being raised now are actually <b= r> > much more complicated issues to navigate: copyright status and stabili= ty.<br> ><br> > Unicode does not want to include Klingon without a letter from <br> > Paramount's legal department stating that they will not sue anyone= who <br> > implements it, but Paramount simply does not care enough to spend <br> > legal resources on that. Tengwar and Cirth are in the hands of the <br= > > Tolkien estate, which is extremely controlling=C2=A0about the use of t= heir <br> > intellectual property and is not going to give permission to encode <b= r> > them. And while it's legally questionable whether a=C2=A0writing s= ystem can <br> > actually be copyrighted, Unicode does not have the resources to find o= ut.<br> <br> It should be noted, though, that the only *official* reason for <br> rejection of Klingon is still "because we don't want to be associa= ted <br> with Those Kinds of People."=C2=A0 The proposal to reject Klingon <br> (<a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html" rel= =3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L20= 01/01212-RejectKlingon.html</a>), adopted by <br> Unicode (<a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183.htm" rel=3D"nore= ferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183= .htm</a>) mentions nothing <br> about IP problems or lack of usage.=C2=A0 This remains the reason it is on = <br> the "Not to be Encoded" list, even though (at the suggestion of K= en <br> Whistler <a href=3D"https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091= .html" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://unicode.org/= mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html</a>) <br> there was a proposal not to approve it, but just to remove it from the <br> "No" list (<a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klin= gon-req.pdf" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.un= icode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf</a>)=C2=A0 <br> Removing it from the "Not Encoded" list would have been a way to = signal <br> a lessening of hostility without actually doing anything (and thus <br> without running risks of IP problems.)<br> <br> Has the hostility been decreasing over the years?=C2=A0 Perhaps, even <br> probably.=C2=A0 There has been unofficial recognition that "lack of us= age" is <br> no longer a valid argument against Klingon (after a new proposal, <br> <a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf" rel=3D= "noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/= 16329-piqad-returns.pdf</a> showed a great <br> deal of usage.)=C2=A0 But there still seems to be something in the "di= gnity <br> argument" (Klingon is beneath the dignity of Unicode, because only ner= ds <br> speak it), brought down explicitly in the Proposal to Reject linked <br> above and on this mailing list <br> <a href=3D"https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2021-September/009589= .html" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://corp.unicode= .org/pipermail/unicode/2021-September/009589.html</a><br> <br> AFAIK, Sitelen Pona is, indeed, insufficiently fleshed out (but I may <br> not be well-enough informed), and the Tolkien estate has come out <br> explicitly against the encoding of Cirth and Tengwar (which I think <br> deserve encoding more than Klingon does, but whose IP situation is <br> rather more clear against it.)<br> <br> Several new writing systems which have been encoded are no older than <br> some conlang scripts, like Adlam (1989), Osage (2006), Signwriting <br> (1974) (and honestly, the IP status of some of them is not clear either, <b= r> though it's definitely an issue in things like Blissymbolics and I thin= k <br> maybe Mandombe), so it clearly isn't a matter of needing to be an *old*= <br> established system... just an established one, and these did demonstrate <b= r> usage and a community.<br> <br> So, yeah, the hostility may be on the decline.=C2=A0 It's still the off= icial <br> stance, though.<br> <br> ~mark<br> <br> </blockquote></div> --000000000000c3f6050652ccf57a--