Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

Mark E. Shoulson mark at kli.org
Sun Sep 19 18:52:34 CDT 2021

There are other recent orthographies still in consideration.  We've 
heard Mandombe *might* have some possible claims on it, and I don't know 
the exact status of Blissymbolics.  I assume Sutton Signwriting was 
either explicitly placed in the public domain or whoever controls it 
signed off on the encoding.
> Or it's an excuse to put Klingon aside without having to discuss use and "dignity".
Indeed.  And again, I'm not imagining the "dignity" argument, it's 
official.  Given new information on usage, can we get some "squishy" 
recognition that "but for" possible copyright issues, Klingon is at 
least worth considering?


On 9/19/21 6:18 AM, David Starner via Unicode wrote:
> 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".

More information about the Unicode mailing list