License for the tzdata information
For all the years I have never worried about this, but today I got an email in my mailbox asking me "Since this is vendor imported data, we would like to register under which license this data is distributed.". Unfortunately I got not much info from Wikipedia, the tzdata or the tzcode files. The tzcode says "This code is in the public domain", but the tzdata doesn't have it, just a "This information is by no means authoritative". So... is there a license under which the tzdata is distributed? Edwin
There's no license. --ado -----Original Message----- From: Edwin Groothuis [mailto:edwin@mavetju.org] Sent: Tue 4/28/2009 6:00 PM To: tz@lecserver.nci.nih.gov Subject: License for the tzdata information For all the years I have never worried about this, but today I got an email in my mailbox asking me "Since this is vendor imported data, we would like to register under which license this data is distributed.". Unfortunately I got not much info from Wikipedia, the tzdata or the tzcode files. The tzcode says "This code is in the public domain", but the tzdata doesn't have it, just a "This information is by no means authoritative". So... is there a license under which the tzdata is distributed? Edwin
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] wrote:
There's no license.
Everything has a license. No license (in the US) means that someone (you?) retains all rights. Obviously, I know you don't _mean_ that, so it'd be good to include an explicit license. It seems like a BSD license would work well. -dave /*============================================================ http://VegGuide.org http://blog.urth.org Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless) ============================================================*/
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] wrote:
There's no license.
Everything has a license. No license (in the US) means that someone (you?) retains all rights.
Not necessarily. It might be a work of the US Government (consider the distribution site, and the name of the organization Arthur is associated with). If so, it is in the public domain.
Obviously, I know you don't _mean_ that, so it'd be good to include an explicit license. It seems like a BSD license would work well.
Agreed. And if it's in the public domain, it would be good for that to be stated explicitly. paul
-On [20090429 01:28], Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] (olsona@dc37a.nci.nih.gov) wrote:
There's no license.
That might actually cause problems in Germany, I think. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B Tattva, achintya bheda abheda tattva...
The data must be made available under a public domain license. Data must be placed into the public domain to be unconstrained by copyright and to be available for both non-commercial and commercial usage. Science Commons [1] recommends the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License [2] or the Creative Commons CC0 license [3]. You must read the first link to understand how important is use a public domain license for data. [1] http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/database-protocol/ [2] http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ [3] http://creativecommons.org/license/zero/ On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:14 +0200, "Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven" <asmodai@in-nomine.org> wrote:
-On [20090429 01:28], Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] (olsona@dc37a.nci.nih.gov) wrote:
There's no license.
That might actually cause problems in Germany, I think.
-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again
Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] said:
There's no license.
At least in English (and Scottish) law, the copyright holder of any written material (like this) has the right to prevent any other person from copying it. A licence is a written (and it must be written) agreement or statement giving other people permission on stated terms (e.g. a payment per copy). One can issue a licence that says anyone can copy it without any payment being required provided that they retain one's name on it. I note that the TZ data and code has several authors; in principle every one of them would need to do this. Again, at least in English and Scottish law, there's a doctrine of estoppel by acquiesence. The data has been distributed without practical restriction for so long that a court would not support a claim for infringement of copyright at this point. However, that would not necessarily apply to new versions. The best solution would be to explicitly attach a Creative Commons licence to the data and code, plus a notice that any contributions are accepted on the terms that the licence extends to them as well. For the record, I accept that any contribution I may have made may be copied on the same terms as the rest of the TZ package. -- 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
Edwin Groothuis schrieb:
For all the years I have never worried about this, but today I got an email in my mailbox asking me "Since this is vendor imported data, we would like to register under which license this data is distributed.".
Unfortunately I got not much info from Wikipedia, the tzdata or the tzcode files. The tzcode says "This code is in the public domain", but the tzdata doesn't have it, just a "This information is by no means authoritative".
So... is there a license under which the tzdata is distributed?
tz-link.htm at least states that "The public-domain time zone database contains code and data that represent the history of local time for many representative locations around the globe." Sascha
"Dave" == Dave Rolsky <autarch@urth.org> writes:
Dave> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] wrote:
There's no license.
Dave> Everything has a license. No license (in the US) means that Dave> someone (you?) retains all rights. Not always. Given ADO's address, the tzdata information may be a work of the US Government, in which case by law it is in the public domain. Dave> Obviously, I know you don't _mean_ that, so it'd be good to Dave> include an explicit license. It seems like a BSD license would Dave> work well. Agreed. For example, if indeed it is in the public domain, then it would be helpful for that to be stated explicitly. paul
As ADO is a U.S. Government (NIH) employee, doing this (presumably) on work time, would the tzdata fall under the "U.S. Government works are in the public domain" rule? On Tuesday, April 28 2009, "Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]" wrote to "<tz@lecserver.nci.nih.gov>" saying:
There's no license.
--ado
-----Original Message----- From: Edwin Groothuis [mailto:edwin@mavetju.org] Sent: Tue 4/28/2009 6:00 PM To: tz@lecserver.nci.nih.gov Subject: License for the tzdata information
For all the years I have never worried about this, but today I got an email in my mailbox asking me "Since this is vendor imported data, we would like to register under which license this data is distributed.".
Unfortunately I got not much info from Wikipedia, the tzdata or the tzcode files. The tzcode says "This code is in the public domain", but the tzdata doesn't have it, just a "This information is by no means authoritative".
So... is there a license under which the tzdata is distributed?
Edwin
Paul Koning <Paul_Koning <at> Dell.com> writes:
There's no license. Dave> Everything has a license. No license (in the US) means that Dave> someone (you?) retains all rights. Not always. Given ADO's address, the tzdata information may be a work of the US Government, in which case by law it is in the public domain.
Maybe that is what ADO meant with "there is no license".
Agreed. For example, if indeed it is in the public domain, then it would be helpful for that to be stated explicitly.
+1 Edwin
hgi list, i was following these thread .. so far i understand is the tz database a compiled list and not protected. So noone would be hurt if Ado add something like "this list is compiled from public source" or from gfdl: " Copyright (C) <year> <your name>. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". " note: i do not suggest to make this gfdl. it is only an example how they describe there licence inside a document. re, wh Edwin Groothuis schrieb:
For all the years I have never worried about this, but today I got an email in my mailbox asking me "Since this is vendor imported data, we would like to register under which license this data is distributed.".
Unfortunately I got not much info from Wikipedia, the tzdata or the tzcode files. The tzcode says "This code is in the public domain", but the tzdata doesn't have it, just a "This information is by no means authoritative".
So... is there a license under which the tzdata is distributed?
Edwin
I found a program Wclock described at http://www.di-mgt.com.au/wclock/download.html When installed, the program puts several clock faces on the Windows desktop. Additional clocks can be configured and existing clocks can be removed. Unfortunately, its windows is always "on top". It can be reduced to just one clock being displayed (and I have just UTC displayed). This program uses the TZ database and should probably have a link on the tz-link.htm page. The program stores a Windows-format .INI file from which Posix TZ strings can be derived from Olson timezone names. The program apparently will automatically update its .INI file when necessary. Dave Cantor Groton, CT
"walter" == walter harms <wharms@bfs.de> writes:
walter> hgi list, i was following these thread .. so far i walter> understand is the tz database a compiled list and not walter> protected. So noone would be hurt if Ado add something like walter> "this list is compiled from public source" walter> or from gfdl: walter> " Copyright (C) <year> <your name>. Permission is granted to walter> copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms walter> of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any walter> later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with walter> no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no walter> Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the walter> section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". " walter> note: i do not suggest to make this gfdl. it is only an walter> example how they describe there licence inside a document. Can we get an authoritative answer please? GFDL is something COMPLETELY different from "public domain". If one is right then the other is wrong. And yes, the list is compiled from public source, but that doesn't directly answer the question of the copyright on the resulting work. It might not qualify in any case in the USA under the "sweat of the brow" rule (Feist v. Rural, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Copyright_law#Compilations_and_the_sweat_o...). But if it's a work of the USA and thereby in the public domain, that's an easier route. paul
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 10:31:52 -0400 From: "Paul Koning" <Paul_Koning@Dell.com> Message-ID: <m1ab5rk4dj.fsf@equallogic.com> | Can we get an authoritative answer please? Personally I'd hate for the tzcode (or data) to have any kind of licence. The reason is that to have a licence, there has to be a licensor, someone (some legal person, or entity) who is granting the licence. Currently (unless either ado, or the NIH, wants to be that) there is nothing around to grant the licence - who do we really think "owns" this data - who can even say they're responsible for the compilation of publicly available data? This is all a co-operative effort, and if any licence were to be granted, it would have to be done by everyone who's ever contributed, individually - and that's just a nightmare to contemplate - and how in any case would we, or anyone, ever know it was complete - that we hadn't missed a single contributor? (And for what it is worth, some of the contributors over time - or at least one I know of anyway, are no longer alive to grant anything, it would have to be done by their estate(s).) People here have said that everything (created anyway) is copyright by someone - and there has to be a licence for anyone else to use it, and in a sense that might be right - but all of the legal authorities come from cases where someone is claiming ownership, and someone else has been trying to deny that (some results may go either way, but there's always a claim). I'd barely hesitate to assume that there's not a single case anywhere where the issue was that that an author was attempting to deny they held copyright on some material, and someone else was trying to force it upon them... That just doesn't happen - who would be bringing suit, and for what? That's what I'd like to see with this (and much other) data that we really want to be "public domain" - where that concept might, or might not exist - that is, we all simply refuse to claim ownership. Not as creator of the data, or as a compiler of the data set. But not being the owner of anything means that we also cannot (rationally) give out a licence for its use (or not a meaningful one anyway). I do however understand the needs, particularly of large (rich) corporations that need to do all they can to protect themselves from accidentally misusing copyright data, and becoming vulnerable to lawsuits because of that. A licence might seem to help them - but it doesn't (or shouldn't) really, as the mere existence of the licence doesn't mean its issuer had the right to do that - the organisation receiving it really still has to investigate, find who the real owner(s) are, and that the licence is genuine - barely any different than investigating to find that there's no determinable owner. What we might do instead however, is to make it clear to all contributors of tz code and data (ie: us) that by contributing, we are agreeing not to enforce any rights that we may have (whether we do or do not) against any person for any use of the tz code and data in any wy whatever. If we were to put a notice to that effect - that all contributors have so agreed, that should perhaps satisfy those people who need some kind of reassurance before using the data, without anyone ever needing to claim that they're the owner of all or any part of the tz collection. kre
Quote:
Personally I'd hate for the tzcode (or data) to have any kind of licence.
Is there any reason we can't just state in the tzdata as well as the tzcode that this data is in the public domain? Whether this is equivalent with a license of copyright or not is only a concern if there is a scenario we want to avoid (person X claims copyright of the tz data unrightfully). I don't see that happen. But I am not an IP expert. Jesper Nørgaard Welen
"Jesper" == Jesper Nørgaard <jnorgard@prodigy.net.mx> writes:
Jesper> Quote:
Personally I'd hate for the tzcode (or data) to have any kind of licence.
Jesper> Is there any reason we can't just state in the tzdata as well Jesper> as the tzcode that this data is in the public domain? Whether Jesper> this is equivalent with a license of copyright or not is only Jesper> a concern if there is a scenario we want to avoid (person X Jesper> claims copyright of the tz data unrightfully). I don't see Jesper> that happen. But I am not an IP expert. The problem is that the IP status of this material isn't a matter of opinion, it's a question of fact. If it's a work of a U.S. Government employee, then it's in the public domain. If it's a "sweat of the brow" compilation of public domain data, then it also is in the public domain. Otherwise, it is subject to copyright of the authors. If so, then a license can be put in place, or the material can be released into the public domain, but that would have to be done by agreement of the authors. My personal guess is that the first alternative applies. But that's a guess, and it's not my call. That's why I asked for an authoritative answer -- which I believe has to come from ADO since he's the lead contributor. It may well be that getting this answer requires navigating through red tape. Arthur, is it possible to get this? You already made the statement "there is no license" which sounds a bit like "it's in the public domain" but it doesn't actually say that. If you meant public domain, could you say so? paul
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Paul Koning <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
Arthur, is it possible to get this? You already made the statement "there is no license" which sounds a bit like "it's in the public domain" but it doesn't actually say that. If you meant public domain, could you say so? I
I second this thought. If it's possible, a notice in the data files similar to that already in the code files,
/* ** This file is in the public domain, so clarified as of ** 2006-07-17 by Arthur David Olson. */
would clarify the situation, and help head off further questions. -- Andy
I'm curious as to whether all of this is really a problem. Is anyone aware of anyone NOT using the data because of a rights concern? I don't know how hard it is to get such statements put into code, but since the U.S. government is involved, one could only imagine... Eliot
participants (16)
-
Andy Heninger -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Dave Cantor -
Dave Rolsky -
Edwin Groothuis -
Eliot Lear -
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven -
Jesper Nørgaard -
Jonas Melian -
lennox＠cs.columbia.edu -
Marc Wick -
Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] -
Paul Koning -
Robert Elz -
Sascha Wildner -
walter harms