Some more comments ..

Jonathan duncanjonathan at YAHOO.CA
Wed May 30 01:34:28 UTC 2007

GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> For your information I read the digest and consequently it is not
> really possible to answer easily to individual messages in there...
> OK.
> 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.. :)
> 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 for SignWriting.
> 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 other things.
> 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.
> I do agree with Steve's analysis about the impact of the license.
> Thanks,
>     Gerard
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Sw-l mailing list