RE: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
Tex via Unicode <[email protected]> Fri, 29 May 2026 22:25:31 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01DCEFBA.100A53A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, so when I assemble a collection of characters to make text, or a = collection of musical notes, or a collection of either program codes or = transistors, it is just an abstract formation of individual pieces, and = in no way can violate a copyright or patent even though it resembles an = similar organization of items appearing in the copyright or patent = registry. =20 The letter a is not protected because of its origins. That is not the = same as letters in a conlang. Wordsmithing a rationale for the characters being encodable will not = prevent a lawsuit from the originator that wants to protect their = creation. =20 Tex No AI was used authoring my text =20 From: Unicode [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of = Bill Poser via Unicode Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 8:43 PM To: unicode Unicode Discussion Subject: Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts? =20 The Consortium should indeed act only on the advice of lawyers with = expertise in intellectual property law. I will, however, venture to make = what I believe is a useful clarification. Much of the information in = Unicode is not protected by IP law. That is, the information that the = glyph used to write such-and-such a sound in Tengwar has certain = properties, which Unicode characterizes in a certain way, is not = protected. Unicode could, I believe, without fear of litigation assign = codepoints to the glyphs of Tengwar insofar as it could identify them. = For instance, the standard could assign a codepoint to "the character = that represents the voiceless dental stop in Tengwar" and it could = probably also identify that character as the one named "tinco". The form = of the glyph, however, may be protected by IP law, and insofar as the = Unicode standard needs to depict characters in order to identify them, = it may not be possible to add things like Tengwar to the standard = without encountering IP problems. =20 By way of comparison, the letter "a" is not protected by IP law. = Nobody's permission was needed to include it in Unicode. However, how = the form of "a" is depicted could create a problem. If the standard = used a glyph from a proprietary font still under copyright, that could = lead to copyright trouble. The fonts used in the standard are licensed = by their owners for that purpose. So, although abstract identifications = are probably unproblematic, depictions of the characters of proprietary = writing systems may very well be. =20 =20 =20 On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 6:22=E2=80=AFPM Tex via Unicode = <[email protected]> wrote: It seems like this discussion comes up every few months. Isn't there a FAQ we can point to, to short circuit these threads? Perhaps there should also be a faq stating that those offering legal = opinions should first of all be lawyers, and second of all provide an = estimate of the legal costs if their approach is pursued. I say this not to dismiss anyone's opinion but to highlight there is no = point in arguing points of law in this list. I doubt the consortium is going to take legal advice from this list or = that something that has not already been considered will be revealed = here and that legal costs are not inconsiderable and perhaps = inestimable. Tex No AI was used authoring my text -----Original Message----- From: Unicode [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of = Doug Ewell via Unicode Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 4:48 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Vikki McDonough Subject: RE: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts? stasoid wrote: > Wow, this is a really sad situation. Tolkien Estate's greed already > stifles everything Tolkien-related with copyrights, but here, even on > solid legal ground, Unicode still doesn't want to deal with it because > of bad vibes. It is quite clear that writing systems cannot be > copyrighted, so Tolkien Estate's opinion shouldn't matter. I don=E2=80=99t think it has anything to do with =E2=80=9Cbad = vibes.=E2=80=9D In order for an organization like Unicode to take on = this legal fight, the grounds would have to be 100.0 percent rock-solid, = tested through multiple similar court cases; and even then, the legal = costs of pursuing the case could be overwhelming. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01DCEFBA.100A53A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" = xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta = http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta = name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered = medium)"><style><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS Mincho"; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;} @font-face {font-family:Mangal; panose-1:0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"\@MS Mincho"; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#002060;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit"> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue = vlink=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><a = name=3D"_MailEndCompose"><span = style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#00206= 0'>Yes, so when I assemble a collection of characters to make text, or a = collection of musical notes, or a collection of either program codes or = transistors, it is just an abstract=C2=A0 formation of individual = pieces, and in no way can violate a copyright or patent even though it = resembles an similar organization of items appearing in the copyright or = patent registry.<o:p></o:p></span></a></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#00206= 0'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#00206= 0'>The letter a is not protected because of its origins. That is not the = same as letters in a conlang.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#00206= 0'>Wordsmithing a rationale for the characters being encodable will not = prevent a lawsuit from the originator that wants to protect their = creation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#00206= 0'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#00206= 0'>Tex<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#00206= 0'>No AI was used authoring my text<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><span = style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#00206= 0'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>= </b><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> = Unicode [mailto:[email protected]] <b>On Behalf Of = </b>Bill Poser via Unicode<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 29, 2026 8:43 = PM<br><b>To:</b> unicode Unicode Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: = Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p = class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p = class=3DMsoNormal>The Consortium should indeed act only on the advice of = lawyers with expertise in intellectual property law. I will, however, = venture to make what I believe is a useful clarification. Much of the = information in Unicode is not protected by IP law. That is, the = information that the glyph used to write such-and-such a sound in = Tengwar has certain properties, which Unicode characterizes in a certain = way, is not protected. Unicode could, I believe, without fear of = litigation assign codepoints to the glyphs of Tengwar insofar as it = could identify them. For instance, the standard could assign a codepoint = to "the character that represents the voiceless dental stop in = Tengwar" and it could probably also identify that character as the = one named "tinco". The form of the glyph, however, may be = protected by IP law, and insofar as the Unicode standard needs to depict = characters in order to identify them, it may not be possible to add = things like Tengwar to the standard without encountering IP = problems.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p = class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p = class=3DMsoNormal>By way of comparison, the letter "a" is not = protected by IP law. Nobody's permission was needed to include it in = Unicode. However, how the form of "a" is depicted could create = a problem. If the standard used a glyph from a proprietary font = still under copyright, that could lead to copyright trouble. The fonts = used in the standard are licensed by their owners for that purpose. So, = although abstract identifications are probably unproblematic, depictions = of the characters of proprietary writing systems may very well = be.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p = class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p = class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p = class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>On = Fri, May 29, 2026 at 6:22=E2=80=AFPM Tex via Unicode <<a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>>= wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote = style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in = 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=3DMsoNormal = style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>It seems like this discussion comes up = every few months.<br>Isn't there a FAQ we can point to, to short circuit = these threads?<br><br>Perhaps there should also be a faq stating that = those offering legal opinions should first of all be lawyers, and second = of all provide an estimate of the legal costs if their approach is = pursued.<br>I say this not to dismiss anyone's opinion but to highlight = there is no point in arguing points of law in this list.<br>I doubt the = consortium is going to take legal advice from this list or that = something that has not already been considered will be revealed here and = that legal costs are not inconsiderable and perhaps = inestimable.<br><br><br>Tex<br>No AI was used authoring my = text<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Unicode [mailto:<a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" = target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>] On Behalf Of = Doug Ewell via Unicode<br>Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 4:48 PM<br>To: <a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" = target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>; <a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" = target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>; Vikki = McDonough<br>Subject: RE: Seeming hostility to conlang = scripts?<br><br>stasoid wrote:<br><br>> Wow, this is a really sad = situation. Tolkien Estate's greed already<br>> stifles everything = Tolkien-related with copyrights, but here, even on<br>> solid legal = ground, Unicode still doesn't want to deal with it because<br>> of = bad vibes. It is quite clear that writing systems cannot be<br>> = copyrighted, so Tolkien Estate's opinion shouldn't matter.<br><br>I = don=E2=80=99t think it has anything to do with =E2=80=9Cbad = vibes.=E2=80=9D In order for an organization like Unicode to take on = this legal fight, the grounds would have to be 100.0 percent rock-solid, = tested through multiple similar court cases; and even then, the legal = costs of pursuing the case could be overwhelming.<br><br>--<br>Doug = Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | <a href=3D"http://ewellic.org" = target=3D"_blank">ewellic.org</a><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote>= </div></div></body></html> ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01DCEFBA.100A53A0--