[License-review] Request for Legacy Approval: Unicode Data Files and Software License

[Sascha Brawer]

Perhaps Unicode-DFS-2015 could be classified as “superseded” by
Unicode-DFS-2016?

The difference between https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-DFS-2016.html and
https://unicode.org/copyright.html#License is a change from “Copyright ©
1991-2016” to “Copyright © 1991-2017”, otherwise they’s been no change. So,
Unicode-DFS-2016 is still current. (If a change in copyright year has any
implications for OSI or SPDX, it would be good to know.)

About the last paragraph, we’ll check within Unicode what the intention was
behind the wording, and then circle back to the list. (Would it matter for
the OSI classification?)

— Sascha

2017-11-30 6:11 GMT+01:00 Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>:

> I understand these are legacy licenses. There is what appears to be an
> interesting complication in the text:
>
> *Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall
> not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other
> dealings in these Data Files or Software without prior written
> authorization of the copyright holder.*
>
> The protected copyright holder's name is "Unicode, Inc." If we consider
> that "Unicode" alone is also the protected name of the copyright holder,
> this would appear to prohibit anyone from stating in advertising that their
> product is compatible with Unicode. Certainly this is not what you want.
>
> We were just talking about trademark restrictions in Open Source licenses
> earlier today. Note my email at https://lists.opensource.
> org/pipermail/license-review/2017-November/003299.html
> My advice applies just as well to this example.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bruce
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Richard Fontana <
> richard.evan.fontana at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-DFS-2016.html
>> https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-DFS-2015.html
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171130/875aa6dc/attachment.html>