Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
Vikki McDonough via Unicode <[email protected]> Wed, 27 May 2026 09:14:55 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAPwTRx-KtsfcEOa8Na06LpJzBKG8wwCSENTSuHX3s00ynKiAZg@mail.gmail.com> |
--000000000000123a290652cd3da4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (Sorry if this comes across as me just rehashing the subject, BTW, but I only just now [as in, just a few minutes ago] came across the below-linked material.) Didn't the U.S. Copyright Office definitively state several years back that writing systems *themselves* (as distinct from the fonts used to *display* those writing systems) are not copyrightable ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160304062736/http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_re= sources/CopyrightAppeals/2004/Mark%20Hendricksen.pdf, linked in https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0048.html), the claims of those systems' creators to the contrary notwithstanding? - Vikki McDonough =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F On Wed, May 27, 2026, 8:58=E2=80=AFAM Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote: > Because the nature of the uniquely hostile IP situation was not fully > understood until relatively recently. > > =E2=80=94Doug > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone > Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > ------------------------------ > *From:* Unicode <[email protected]> on behalf of Vikki > McDonough via Unicode <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 27, 2026 7:54:58 AM > *To:* Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts? > > > Why, then, did Tengwar and Cirth manage to get on the SMP roadmap and sta= y > 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 > > --000000000000123a290652cd3da4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto"><div>(Sorry if this comes across as me just rehashing the= subject, BTW, but I only just now [as in, just a few minutes ago] came acr= oss the below-linked material.)</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir= =3D"auto">Didn't the U.S. Copyright Office definitively state several y= ears back that writing systems *themselves* (as distinct from the fonts use= d to *display* those writing systems) are not copyrightable (<a href=3D"htt= ps://web.archive.org/web/20160304062736/http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resou= rces/CopyrightAppeals/2004/Mark%20Hendricksen.pdf">https://web.archive.org/= web/20160304062736/http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals= /2004/Mark%20Hendricksen.pdf</a>, linked in <a href=3D"https://unicode.org/= mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0048.html">https://unicode.org/mail-arch/uni= code-ml/y2016-m11/0048.html</a>), the claims of those systems' creators= to the contrary notwithstanding?</div><div><br></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 cla= ss=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_at= tr">On Wed, May 27, 2026, 8:58=E2=80=AFAM Doug Ewell <<a href=3D"mailto:= [email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote clas= s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad= ding-left:1ex"> <div> <div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Ar= ial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir=3D"auto"> Because the nature of the uniquely hostile IP situation was not fully under= stood until relatively recently.=C2=A0</div> <div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Ar= ial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir=3D"auto"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Ar= ial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir=3D"auto"> =E2=80=94Doug</div> <div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Ar= ial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir=3D"auto"> <br> </div> <div id=3D"m_7860221623569658393ms-outlook-mobile-body-separator-line" dir= =3D"auto" style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Robo= to,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Ar= ial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <br> </div> </div> <div id=3D"m_7860221623569658393ms-outlook-mobile-signature" dir=3D"auto" s= tyle=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,He= lvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)"> <span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,A= rial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)">Sent via the = Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone</span><br style=3D"f= ont-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,s= ans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,A= rial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)">Get </span><a href=3D"https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg" style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_= MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12p= t" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">Outlook for Android</a></div> <hr style=3D"display:inline-block;width:98%"> <div id=3D"m_7860221623569658393divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Ca= libri, sans-serif" style=3D"font-size:11pt" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> = Unicode <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_= blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a>> on behal= f of Vikki McDonough via Unicode <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= .org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a>>= <br> <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 27, 2026 7:54:58 AM<br> <b>To:</b> Mark E. Shoulson <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_= blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a>>; <a href=3D"mailto:unicode@c= orp.unicode.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">[email protected].= org</a> <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" r= el=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a>><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?</font> <div>=C2=A0</div> </div> <div> <div dir=3D"auto"> <div><br> </div> <div>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 scrip= ts managed), if they faced a uniquely-hostile 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> <div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, May 26, 2026, 5:57=E2=80=AFPM Mark E. Shoulson via= Unicode <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" = rel=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l= eft: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 noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.unicode= .org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html</a>), adopted by <br> Unicode (<a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183.htm" rel=3D"nore= ferrer noreferrer 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 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 noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">htt= ps://www.unicode.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 noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.unicode.or= g/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 noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://c= orp.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> </div> </div> </blockquote></div> --000000000000123a290652cd3da4--