[tz] NIST leap-second file not yet updated

[Adam Sampson]

Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis at systematicsw.ab.ca> writes:

>> My understanding of the legal mechanism behind this statement is that it
>> attempts to establish via estoppel the effect of public domain even in
>> legal regimes that don't have that concept.
> This does not seem to apply to civil law regimes which do not have the
> concept of estoppel e.g. Scotland, [...]

There's a really interesting discussion of the differences between
English and Scots law in terms of how you construct a public-domain-ish
license by Andrew Katz (who is a lawyer, although I'm not) in the UK
chapter of "The International FOSS Law Book", available from
<http://ifosslawbook.org/uk/>. He writes:

| [Scots law, following Roman law recognises the binding legal effect of
| a unilateral promise without further formality] ...
|
| Scots Law does not require there to be consideration before there can
| be a contract, so there would be no need to invoke principles of
| personal bar [Personal bar is the equivalent principle in Scotland to
| estoppel in England]. However, since a simple unilateral promise would
| be effective in Scots Law, there seems little point in venturing into
| the additional complications of bilateral contracts with a ius
| quaesitum tertio.

The other chapters of the book discuss the same question under other
legal systems, where the answer appears to be even less
straightforward...

-- 
Adam Sampson <ats at offog.org>                         <http://offog.org/>