On 19/10/2011 12:41 PM, Todd Glassey wrote:

Damn I am Dyslexic... what I was trying to say is that we are not the originators of this information - the jurisdictional metrological lab or the jurisdiction holder is. We need to put in place processes which compliment their dissemination models and which do not open us to liability. Notice in the OLSON Suit Astrolabe is suing OLSON and not NIH. They will lose since the project is protected under the 11th Amendment Rights there of NIH, since it and not OLSON holds responsibility for the publishing.

But isn't the mere existence of the OlsenDB prove that this just doesn't work? Seeing how improvised and last minute many of these changes are, some of these jurisdictions clearly don't understand the implication these changes have on the IT infrastructure of their constituents. If they don't care for their constituents, why do you think they would care more about a 3rd party? More importantly I think you misjudge the incentives and motivations in the matter. That's important since it is what drives the efforts put in regard to time keeping. It is the IT industry which, to keep their service behaving properly and avoiding bugs and angry customers, needs an accurate representation of the timezone information. It's therefore natural that it's the IT industry that will be willing to put the efforts needed towards gathering that information simply because they have the incentive to do it. As far as politicians are concerned, they just need to say "Make It So" and it will happen. That won't drive many of them into action. While it would be nice that governments properly inform us of their plans, we would be lucky if we got just a simple majority to comply. Yet we need complete information in the matter. Such mechanisms would likely always be incomplete and need to be complemented by 3rd party information gathering.

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

...

To sidestep that liability there are a number of things we can do with

...

the Stakeholder Role suggested in B too - we should talk more about this and who actually owns this data. Who owns it is one of the topics of the current litigation.

Not exactly ... who the information was copied from is the subject of the litigation. The information itself is 'public domain' and nobody can deny that, the current problem is a compilation of that material does have some protection so it is a matter of the data being directly copied, or simply used as a reference to verify the data with other sources. If the use of a source is cross referenced with other sources, and the validity of conflicts are investigated, then the data has not simply been cut and paste copied, and can't be so protected. Going forward, there is no problem, but many of us have an interest in the past history, and while the history is public domain, doing the work to collate that information into a single source is what can be copyrighted. In this case there is obviously no simple copying, since the information has been expanded and modified to correct mistakes? As I understand it, the timezone data published in the atlas has not actually been updated in later issues and so is no longer a reliable source anyway? Identifying verified sources of any of the data is important, and the mailing list provides a lot of that material, which may include references to an 'Authoritative Body' who has created the information. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

I've been a long-time lurker on this list, having a keen interest in embedded development and systems integration of trading and financial platforms that run 24x7 world-wide.  I think Zoneinfo is the most under-valued project in the world, and its usefulness as a resource is going to become quickly apparent shortly (more on that in a bit). I would like to make the following comments ... 1.  We should stop publicly using phrase like "derived work" and "clean room" and "copyrighted sources."  And to end such commentary, let's get one thing straight, and I wish someone with authority would say this publicly ... The Olson, Eggert, et al. concentration that is known as Zoneinfo today is an _original_ work of on-going volunteers who constantly report and relay updated time and zoning information from original, government and regulatory sources.  This work has been on-going since 1986, and many other commercial software and publish information resources leverage Zoneinfo without any attribution.  For historical purposes prior to its founding in 1986, Zoneinfo does use other, published sources to verify information, as any standards organization -- from the IEEE to IETF -- does and annotate.  This information is public and the exchange of documented, historical information is a two-way street with many publishers benefiting from the Zoneinfo project as well. The proof of this will be realized shortly.  Because as the free flow of information in the Zoneinfo project by its world-wide list of volunteers is no longer on-going, many other projects and product will become stagnant -- from non-Zoneinfo compatible commercial software and systems to publishers who were using Zoneinfo for updates as well as to verify time and zoning information for their own works.  This latter reality begs the question how any entity could refer to the Zoneinfo database as a derived work, when it is an original work, and a continuing original work, of public domain facts that many other entities rely on, and only uses other sources and references for verification in the same manner Zoneinfo itself is used by them. This is the foundation of elementary research and attribution of information already in the public domain.  And in the case of time and zone information, no entity has owned the cost of its research, and it is shared across many, including Zoneinfo being a recognized authority for such concentration, not consumer. 2.  Domestic US and international laws, lawsuits and other filings have continued to harm open standards of public domain information and interoperability Let us not dive into referring things as US law or US specific.  I have seen my share of German laws, and resulting lawsuits, that can be more constraining than even US law.  And we should even less discussion on how the law applies, as that is for the courts.  We can all agree that both domestic US and international law must be adhered to, but that lawyers will file lawsuits and make arguments in error, or in total stretch of their application.  And this has continually harmed open standards of public domain information and interoperability. This is very much the case here.  Again, I cannot stress we should avoid all reference to "derived work" and other, wholly inapplicable phrases, because this is about research and publication, reference and sources, of which Zoneinfo and the work of Olson, Eggert, et al has been quite original, repeatedly, and even referenced by others. 3.  The Internet may be international, and international guidance is warranted, but there are still 25, 30, 35 and even 40+ year and still continuing, American or US-based volunteers, plus US taxpayer money at agencies, that have laid or sponsored much of the foundation and continuing work As an American, I'm biased, and I'm sure this is going to fall on deaf ears with people rolling their eyes, but it must be said.  I've been an outside, but interested party to many of these situations over the last few decades, from IEEE to IEFT.  Nothing makes me cringe more than when people try to make something that is not remotely political into a political view. Like all community developments, things just grow out of need, sometimes in the least likely of volunteers, their employers, etc..., from the most unlikely of places.  This has been the case of many Internet projects and standards, just like other open community origins.  Snide comments should be stomped upon.  Zoneinfo can be of and by ICANN-IANA, all while recognizing its origins and stewardship of its volunteers, and sponsoring entities whether direct or indirect. <unsolicited opinion> We should avoid all negative references towards US-based volunteerism and stewardship, which I see done sometimes in the case of Internet history and infrastructure, as well as open, international community projects in general.  It's one thing for a single, national entity to some in lately and assert authority, but that's not the case where.  We're talking a project that is 25 years-old (let alone even older) when most of the foundation and corresponding stewardship was by Americans or US-based individuals, organizations and agencies.  There is no ulterior motives and there are no "control" mechanisms, just a history of effort. Despite a lot of assumptions many people outside the US has, the average American often shows great and selfless volunteerism and interest in public goods, when completely uncompensated and otherwise not publicly funding (which I know baffles many non-Americans at times).  It's one of the reason why many open, community-based projects often thrive in the US, because we look beyond any funding, private or public, but just because we believe it should be done.  I guess over the last few years, I've seen some very, very, long-time charitable Americans and US-based individuals and entities cut down for various reasons, accused of making the wrong decisions or having ulterior motives, when they were merely there in the beginning, back when it was largely a US-based effort. So I feel compelled to ask people to keep such things in mind, as a project transitions to international stewardship. </unsolicited opinion> -- Bryan J  Smith       Professional, Technical Annoyance Linked Profile:     http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith

Is it possible to set up a separate list to discuss the nontechnical aspects of the tzinfo database? I'm indifferent; but it would make trolls easier to corral. :) David Braverman http://www.wx-now.com -----Original Message----- From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Tony Finch Sent: Thursday 20 October 2011 09:01 To: Clive D.W. Feather Cc: tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Elliot - I want to talk about the TZ project ASAP... Clive D.W. Feather <clive@davros.org> wrote:

For example, in the UK the timezones are purely a matter for Parliament and the courts and nobody else. They aren't tied to any kind of international law or treaty.

The start and end dates of summer time are subject to a European directive, but each country can choose its own base offset. Also, don't feed the trolls. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Rockall, Malin, Hebrides: Southwest veering west later, 5 to 7, increasing gale 8 at times, perhaps severe gale 9 for a time in Hebrides later, occasionally 4 later. Rough or very rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or good, occasionally poor.

Tony Finch said:

...

For example, in the UK the timezones are purely a matter for Parliament and the courts and nobody else. They aren't tied to any kind of international law or treaty. The start and end dates of summer time are subject to a European directive, but each country can choose its own base offset.

But it was Parliament who modified the Summer Time Act. Yes, they did so to meet a treaty obligation, but I don't believe there's any requirement *in law* for them to do so. As a worst case, they could add an exception to the European Communities Act and then just ignore that Directive. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646