There's a discussion of the lawsuit on Slashdot:http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/06/1743226/civil-suit-filed-involving-the-time-zone-database
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:14 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" <[email protected]>wrote: > [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 ([email protected]); the > IETF was looking into taking this over, with http://tools.ietf.org/html/** > draft-lear-iana-timezone-**database-04<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<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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
