<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
For your information I read the digest and consequently it is not
really possible to answer easily to individual messages in there...<br>
Valerie, you state that you would consider making SignWriting public
domain.. there are legal systems that do not allow for this to happen.
I also am really grateful that you state in no uncertain terms that you
want people to use SignWriting... REALLY want to have all people that
sign also write their language !!
PS I strongly believe that there is nothing you like better than more
people using SignWriting to write their sign language. The license
should make it even more obvious.. :)<br>
Sandy, I am really happy that you are building your software in such a
way that re-use of the code is considered. At some stage I may want to
learn more about how you all manage the software development. This will
certainly be the case when we get to the stage when we enable MediaWiki
SignWriting is well established and as a consequence it will be
impossible to patent it. However, a grant was given by the NSF and in
the grant is says that there is no method of writing sign languages.
This implies that a lot of marketing for SignWriting may be needed to
prevent these notions on official documents.
PS I do not get fed up with this stuff. It is not only essential to get
it right, it also has to feel right to all of you. This takes time..
and we do not need to rush into anything. So I very much agree with
Valerie that we have to be relaxed about all this.. it is something
that needs doing.. in a way it is sad that it takes time away from
Pharos, the IPA permission seems to be very much what might be
considered for SignWriting as well. It is short, it is clear and it
does not have any restrictions at all. This permission allows for the
creation of specific fonts (all having a similar look and feel) that
can be created under whatever license. In the end it is your choice ..
consider it with care..
Jonathan, I suggested the OFL, I gladly have you all use a different
license. The license of the OFL is considered Free and it has all the
legalese worked out. That makes it relatively easy to adopt. Then
again, the IPA permission seems to be an equally valid choice that
seems to be closer to what you all want.
I like the IPA-like permission. It's clear and would help make it
clear for everybody.<br>
I do agree with Steve's analysis about the impact of the license.<br>
If the OFL doesn't affect in any way the program in which they are used
and only applies the PNG and the SVG graphics, and we would have to
contribute any modifications of the graphics back to everybody. Then I
don't see any problem with the OFL for the PNG and the SVGs. <br>
<font face="Comic Sans MS">Jonathan</font>
<address><font face="Comic Sans MS"><big><br>