<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7651.59">
<TITLE>Re: License for the tzdata information</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>>>> "walter" == walter harms <wharms@bfs.de> writes:<BR>
<BR>
walter> hgi list, i was following these thread .. so far i<BR>
walter> understand is the tz database a compiled list and not<BR>
walter> protected. So noone would be hurt if Ado add something like<BR>
walter> "this list is compiled from public source"<BR>
<BR>
walter> or from gfdl:<BR>
<BR>
walter> " Copyright (C) <year> <your name>. Permission is granted to<BR>
walter> copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms<BR>
walter> of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any<BR>
walter> later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with<BR>
walter> no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no<BR>
walter> Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the<BR>
walter> section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". "<BR>
<BR>
walter> note: i do not suggest to make this gfdl. it is only an<BR>
walter> example how they describe there licence inside a document.<BR>
<BR>
Can we get an authoritative answer please?<BR>
<BR>
GFDL is something COMPLETELY different from "public domain". If one<BR>
is right then the other is wrong.<BR>
<BR>
And yes, the list is compiled from public source, but that doesn't<BR>
directly answer the question of the copyright on the resulting work.<BR>
It might not qualify in any case in the USA under the "sweat of the<BR>
brow" rule (Feist v. Rural,<BR>
<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Copyright_law#Compilations_and_the_sweat_of_the_brow_doctrine">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Copyright_law#Compilations_and_the_sweat_of_the_brow_doctrine</A>).<BR>
But if it's a work of the USA and thereby in the public domain, that's<BR>
an easier route.<BR>
<BR>
paul<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>