<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 15 February 2016 at 14:00, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Paul_Koning@dell.com" target="_blank">Paul_Koning@dell.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I don't see how copyright can be valid on a list of leap seconds -- facts are not covered by copyright.</blockquote></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I think most on this list are well aware of that. ;) The concern here, though, is more with the associated commentary, which varies greatly between the NIST and IERS files.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":15y" class="" style="overflow:hidden">I don't see any mention of copyright on the IERS website. It would of course be desirable for it to give an explicit statement saying copyright does not apply (at least not to its bulletins).</div></blockquote></div><br>At least in the US, copyright exists by default (at least for copyrightable portions of works). Even without that, it's better to err on the side of caution. This is part of why we've gone out of <i>our</i> way to explicitly state that tz files are public domain; I'd expect that a similar arrangement might be feasible here.<br><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature">--<br>Tim Parenti<br></div></div>
</div></div>