[tz] NIST leap-second file not yet updated
paul at ganssle.io
Thu Feb 18 22:18:20 UTC 2016
Yes, I agree. I'm just wondering why the reluctance about CC-0. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Zero_.2F_public_domain), it was originally designed to facilitate free sharing of scientific data, which is essentially the use case here.
Unfortunately, I think most of the problems with public domain / CC-0 is in Europe (see, e.g. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2014-October/008866.html about how in Norway works in the Public Domain are subject to a levy). To the extent that it's possible, the best situation would probably be a dual license between CC-0 and something equivalent to CC-BY (MIT, BSD, etc.), so that in countries where it's better to use the data under a slightly more restrictive license, you can do that. Presumably IERS has some sort of legal counsel that can sort things out, though.
In my experience, it's a real nightmare to affirmatively discharge all your copyrights in something in a way that doesn't come back to bite you in some jurisdiction.
On 2016年02月18日 16:09, Arthur David Olson wrote:
> 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 <mailto:paul at ganssle.io>> wrote:
> 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 <mailto:eggert at cs.ucla.edu>> wrote:
>>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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the tz