Date 1 - 2 of 2
I'm wondering why https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-TOU.html is (still)
part of the license list. Could it be deprecated?
First of all, the current text of the "Unicode® Copyright and Terms of
Use" is quite different from the text which is referenced at
https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-TOU.html (SPDX License Diff is very
helpful to show the differences - thanks again to Alan Tse).
Sec. C.3 of the current version refers to the "Unicode Data Files and
"Further specifications of rights and restrictions pertaining to the use
of the Unicode DATA FILES and SOFTWARE can be found in the Unicode Data
Files and Software License."
The "Unicode Data Files and Software License"
(https://www.unicode.org/license.txt) is similar but not identical to
or less ToU for a website and all redistributables are under "Unicode-DFS".
Unicode modifies the "year" within the copyright notice from year to
year. The "Unicode Data Files and Software License" provides as follows:
"this copyright and permission notice appear with all copies
of the Data Files or Software"
Would this require to identify in which year the data and/or software
was copied from the Unicode website to use the license text with the
correct year? Would it be sufficient to use the most recent version of
the license text? Should this be reflected in the SPDX identifier?
Is there anybody with more background information who can give some
With the colossal caveat that I am only a **consumer of** Unicode's deliverables, I could speak briefly to the concern at point #3:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:20 AM Till Jaeger via lists.spdx.org <jaeger=jbb.de@...> wrote:
This is certainly inconvenient, but the Unicode site does host quite a few items with practical application, but which aren't under the "DATA FILES" and "SOFTWARE" hierarchies spelled out in "B" of the TOU.
Namely, there is the whole "Unicode® Technical Site" at the entry point https://unicode.org/main.html ... which is different from the "Unicode site" at the entry point https://home.unicode.org/
Some of that "Technical Site" material covers projects and committees; there are also older documents, proposals, some data tables, things called "annexes" that I'm never 100% sure I understand the status of, and so on. My guess would be that there is a lot of legacy material from the organization's history that simply doesn't have a clear-cut, select-a-license-from-the-dropdown option.
Fortunately, a lot of that material is mostly needed as references, but I can certainly see how occasions would arise where quoting from it is necessary to squash a bug. I've had people attach screenshots from really old Unicode docs in discussion threads. So I wouldn't attempt to weigh in on the other issues (certainly keeping the text up-to-date sounds vital), but merely dropping the license from SPDX would likely affect (a few) projects downstream.
|1 - 2 of 2|