Re: Mandombe

From: Asmus Freytag <>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:59:28 -0700

On 6/9/2012 11:54 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I agree with Philippe on this one. It's not up to Unicode to decide
> whether a script is "practical," easy to read, easy to write, etc. But
> if there is any sort of intellectual property claim that imposes any
> conditions on the use of the script, including describing or encoding
> it, developing fonts or code charts, or anything else, it should be a
> complete non-starter as far as Unicode is concerned.
People may make claims all they want, but it's a question of whether
such claims are enforceable. To give advice on that would be a matter
for legal counsel. I would be careful to avoid any absolute statements
that would appear to allow any "claims", however tenuous, to stand in
the way of legitimate encoding - especially if this is in support of a
living script.

This is different from the case of logos, where it's well established
that protections for claims do exist and are enforceable under trademark
and other laws.

Received on Sat Jun 09 2012 - 15:01:32 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Jun 09 2012 - 15:01:32 CDT