This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 3/5] localedata: CLDRv28: update LC_ADDRESS.country_name translations

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:34:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Keld Simonsen:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:12:00PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Carlos O'Donell:
> >> 
> >> > I suggest we continue the work and I will ask FSF legal to comment
> >> > on the issue of needing an attribution for the use of the Unicode
> >> > data files. I am still of the opinion that the original statement
> >> > from the FSF is enough guidance, to continue the work Mike is doing,
> >> > but it doesn't hurt to get clarification.
> >> 
> >> Please also point them out that ISO currently seems to re-sell glibc
> >> locale data under a restrictive license.  This is probably not what
> >> the FSF wanted to enabled when it disclaimed copyright on glibc locale
> >> data.
> > How does ISO resell these data, and where?
> A while back, you wrote this:
> From:
> Subject: Re: Should glibc provide a builtin C.UTF-8 locale?
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:10:38 +0100 (16 weeks, 5 days, 22 hours ago)
> Message-ID: <>
> | Yes, ISO TR 30112 i18n and glibc i18n are essentially the same, as 
> | ISO 30112 builds on a bit old copy of glibc i18n locale.
> | In turn the glibc i18n  locale was built on ISO TR 14652 i18n 
> | locale, so this is a fruitful relation. ISO 30112 is the followup
> | spec on ISO 14652, and ISO 30112 has catched up with some glibc development.
> <>

Oh well, I did have a thought that it was one of my own texts:-)

Well, the data in both 14652 and 30112 bear a GPL license. 30112 WD10 page 8 says:
"The "i18n" FDCC-set and its parts are released under the GNU Public License, version 2, 
as it is taken from glibc sources" 

But if FSF does not put a license on the locales, as they might think this is
not appropiate, then that would not be so relevant... I would keep the copyrights
anyway in 30112, because we then can lift it out of ISO/IEC copyrights.

I note that the 14652 data predates the FSF mail, and the glibc data
was bearing a GPL license before it was incorporated into 14652. 30112 then copies 14652,
including the license.

I also note that I think the locales have a height of work in copyright sense,
because the whole scheme of the locales, and them being tailorable and character
set independent is almost a work of art:-) Some of the techniques would be patentable,
if we did not know better.

I also wrote this at that time where the FSF statement were published, but I would
state that each of the informations in the locales are just information, and you cannot
copyright information.  This also applies to Unicode data, the information in them 
are not copyrightable, but the collection is.

Best regards

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]