Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

[David Starner]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 1:00 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal via Unicode
<unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:
> Unicode would need to take serious legal advice before making a move towards encoding any script of this nature.

Of what nature?

Osmanya, created 1922, creator died 1972
N’Ko, created 1949, creator died 1987
Adlam, created 1980s, creators alive
Osage. created 2004-2014, creators alive
Kayah Li, created 1962, creator death unclear
Pahawh Hmong, created 1959, creator died in 1971
Nyiakeng Puachue Hmong, created 1980s, creator living
Shavian, created 1960s, creator died 1975
Sorang Sompeng, created 1936, creator died in 1980

This is not complete, but there's eight scripts that, if copyright
applies to scripts, are copyrighted in life+70 nations. (There's more,
but I stopped looking, and left out several maybes.) For most of these
Unicode has ignored any copyright the creators may own entirely; even
for those like Osage, where I know there was Unicode-creator contact,
I don't know of anything on paper.

Let's not be too abstract about this; Unicode has acted as if the
creators of the Osage or Adlam scripts won't sue for control, which,
given a Pepe the Frog type situation, I'm not sure I entirely trust.
If it's an abstract legal question for Unicode, Unicode has acted with
disregard for the rights of those creators. Unicode has decided that
the law, to the extent it cares to follow the law, is on its side.
This is about risk management, not the law. Or it's an excuse to put
Klingon aside without having to discuss use and "dignity".

-- 
The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understanding
a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit up
straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- _Pascal_, ISO 7185
(1991)