Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
"Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode" <[email protected]> Sun, 31 May 2026 13:05:34 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------gq6GTVPtNRDixl8G02VFPQGm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (sorry, computer been down a few days and still slowly reinstalling everything...) At this point, using logic to argue this point is useless. Unicode doesn't care if you've got a great argument--and rightly they should not! A really killer argument might be helpful if you get to a court case, but by then the damage has been done. There's no point in musing about whether or not we "should" be okay; Unicode needs more assurance than that (though they won't tell me quite what.) ~mark On 5/27/26 10:14 AM, Vikki McDonough via Unicode wrote: > (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_resources/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 🏳️⚧️ > > On Wed, May 27, 2026, 8:58 AM Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Because the nature of the uniquely hostile IP situation was not > fully understood until relatively recently. > > —Doug > > > 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 stay there until very recently (something *none* of the other > conlang scripts managed), if they faced a uniquely-hostile IP > situation? > > - Vikki McDonough 🏳️⚧️ > > On Tue, May 26, 2026, 5:57 PM 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 stability. > > > > 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 out. > > 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 > --------------gq6GTVPtNRDixl8G02VFPQGm Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> <p>(sorry, computer been down a few days and still slowly reinstalling everything...)</p> <p>At this point, using logic to argue this point is useless. Unicode doesn't care if you've got a great argument--and rightly they should not! A really killer argument might be helpful if you get to a court case, but by then the damage has been done. There's no point in musing about whether or not we "should" be okay; Unicode needs more assurance than that (though they won't tell me quite what.)</p> <p>~mark</p> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/27/26 10:14 AM, Vikki McDonough via Unicode wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAPwTRx-KtsfcEOa8Na06LpJzBKG8wwCSENTSuHX3s00ynKiAZg@mail.gmail.com"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <div dir="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 across the below-linked material.)</div> <div dir="auto"><br> </div> <div dir="auto">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 (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160304062736/http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2004/Mark%20Hendricksen.pdf" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://web.archive.org/web/20160304062736/http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2004/Mark%20Hendricksen.pdf</a>, linked in <a href="https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0048.html" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0048.html</a>), the claims of those systems' creators to the contrary notwithstanding?</div> <div><br> </div> <div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"> <div dir="ltr"> <div><br> </div> - Vikki McDonough 🏳️⚧️</div> </div> </div> <br> <div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, May 27, 2026, 8:58 AM Doug Ewell <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div> <div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto"> Because the nature of the uniquely hostile IP situation was not fully understood until relatively recently. </div> <div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto"> <br> </div> <div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto"> —Doug</div> <div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)" dir="auto"> <br> </div> <div id="m_7860221623569658393ms-outlook-mobile-body-separator-line" dir="auto" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <br> </div> </div> <div id="m_7860221623569658393ms-outlook-mobile-signature" dir="auto" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)"> <span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,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="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)">Get </span><a href="https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Outlook for Android</a></div> <hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%"> <div id="m_7860221623569658393divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Unicode <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>> on behalf of Vikki McDonough via Unicode <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>><br> <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 27, 2026 7:54:58 AM<br> <b>To:</b> Mark E. Shoulson <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>>; <a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a> <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?</font> <div> </div> </div> <div> <div dir="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 scripts managed), if they faced a uniquely-hostile IP situation?</div> <div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"> <div dir="ltr"> <div><br> </div> - Vikki McDonough 🏳️⚧️</div> </div> </div> <br> <div> <div dir="ltr">On Tue, May 26, 2026, 5:57 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 5/26/26 6:32 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode wrote:<br> > Unicode's "hostility" to conlang scripts has actually been <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 <br> > much more complicated issues to navigate: copyright status and stability.<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 about the use of their <br> > intellectual property and is not going to give permission to encode <br> > them. And while it's legally questionable whether a writing system can <br> > actually be copyrighted, Unicode does not have the resources to find out.<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 associated <br> with Those Kinds of People." The proposal to reject Klingon <br> (<a href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html</a>), adopted by <br> Unicode (<a href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183.htm" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183.htm</a>) mentions nothing <br> about IP problems or lack of usage. This remains the reason it is on <br> the "Not to be Encoded" list, even though (at the suggestion of Ken <br> Whistler <a href="https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"> 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="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf</a>) <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? Perhaps, even <br> probably. There has been unofficial recognition that "lack of usage" is <br> no longer a valid argument against Klingon (after a new proposal, <br> <a href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf</a> showed a great <br> deal of usage.) But there still seems to be something in the "dignity <br> argument" (Klingon is beneath the dignity of Unicode, because only nerds <br> speak it), brought down explicitly in the Proposal to Reject linked <br> above and on this mailing list <br> <a href="https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2021-September/009589.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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, <br> though it's definitely an issue in things like Blissymbolics and I think <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 <br> usage and a community.<br> <br> So, yeah, the hostility may be on the decline. It's still the official <br> stance, though.<br> <br> ~mark<br> <br> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </body> </html> --------------gq6GTVPtNRDixl8G02VFPQGm--