[tz] NIST leap-second file not yet updated
Arthur David Olson
arthurdavidolson at gmail.com
Thu Feb 18 21:09:11 UTC 2016
Ultimately the language added gets decided by the IERS; we needn't
necessarily make a decision. We might identify options (concise, verbose,
by reference, or otherwise) that work for us and present those options to
the IERS for their consideration.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Paul G <paul at ganssle.io> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> Isn't CC0 designed specifically for this sort of situation? It's public
> domain with a fallback for jurisdictions where that concept doesn't exist.
> I've always been warned against using "crayon licenses" like simple
> declarations. Seems to me that any way you go, it's best to use one of the
> well known permissive licenses over something ad hoc.
> On February 18, 2016 11:29:44 AM EST, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu>
> >On 02/18/2016 07:12 AM, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> >> after download you still can't be sure the file has not been
> >> modified. The included SHA1 hash can be generated by anyone
> >I wouldn't worry about this. We generate our own checksums for the
> >entire tzdata distribution including the leap-seconds file, and sign
> >The main problem here is legal, not technical.
> >I agree with Tony that the EUPL is not suitable for the tz project.
> >a pain to use the EUPL even with GPLed code (e.g., GNU/Linux), much
> >BSD (e.g., FreeBSD). We need something more like public-domain or
> >3-clause BSD, both of which we already use. Public domain is preferable
> >because it's simpler. CC0 would also be OK, I expect.
> >If this turns into a legal hassle for the IERS, as I suspect it will,
> >then it's not worth their trouble. We'll just keep doing what we have
> >been doing, or something like it.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: APG v1.1.1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tz