[By accident, I sent this only to Ken first; he recommended I send it to
both Unicode and Unicore.]
I have sent a mail to a relevant IETF list (apps-disc...@ietf.org); the
IETF was looking into taking this over, with
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-04, but
apparently, Unicode got alerted first.
In terms of practical matters, two points seem important to me:
First, to ask the judge for a temporary permission (there's a better
legal term, but IANAL) to keep the database up until the law suit is
settled (because the database is probably down now due to a temporary
order from the judge to that effect) because of its high practical
importance.
Second, what seems to be in dispute is data about old history. While
this is important for some applications, in most applications, present
and new data is much more important, so one way to avoid problems would
be to publish only new data at some new place until the case is settled.
That would mean that applications would have to be checked for whether
they need the old data or not. Or to only publish diffs (which would be
about new, present-day data not from the source under litigation).
Regards, Martin.
On 2011/10/07 4:45, Ken Lunde wrote:
Arle and others,
The URL for the following blog post was tweeted a few minutes ago:
http://blog.joda.org/2011/10/today-time-zone-database-was-closed.html
-- Ken
On Oct 6, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Arle Lommel wrote:
Is there any public information about the lawsuit? I was stunned to see the
forwarded mail and want to understand the implications of this lawsuit, but I
can't find any news about it other than Arthur’s rather telegraphic note. I
understand that he may not be able to comment given pending litigation, but if
we had any information at all about what the suit is, it might help clarify if
there is any need for concern.
-Arle
It would be nice, but I don't think the Consortium can do that without first
understanding if it gets exposed to its own lawsuit.
Eric.
