Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This license is not actually DFSG-free; it grants the right to make > copies, to use copies for creating products, and to distribute copies > *internally*, but it does not grant the right to distribute copies > publically or to modify the file.
The perceived consensus in 2002 was that the license is DFSG-free, but this is not my point. (However, sometimes I think it's easier to intepret the license itself than the result of the discussion about it on this list.) > So if the data is copyrightable, then the license is not DFSG-free; and > if it's not copyrightable, no license (or license notice) is necessary. This contradicts the RMS's interpretation of the issues on the emacs-devel mailing list (sorry, no direct link). He thinks that the UCD is copyrightable, and the "extraction clause" is the loophole we can use. However, it's still rather impolite not to honour the explicit request for credits, and the credits is all what is required to make the Unicode Consortium happy. Why not include them? Better safe than sorry.
