Future time zone home

[Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]]

In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) web site:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

Comments on how the draft can be improved are welcome. Also welcome: feedback on whether the proposed approach meets the needs of folks on the time zone mailing list--the proposed approach can't and won't go forward without support from the time zone community.

The document includes electronic mail addresses for Eliot and Paul; general comments can also be sent to the time zone mailing list.

--ado

[Tony Finch]

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

I think this could be a good solution to the problem.

A few suggestions:

Section 5: Maintenance and Distribution of Reference Code

Currently the maintainer of the TZ database also maintains reference
code. This software is currently distributed under the BSD license.

Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

Section 6 is supposed to be about the database but contains a misplaced
comment about the code's licence which correctly contradicts section 5.

There should be a section on the licensing of contributions, since the TZ
licence is more liberal than the IETF licence.

Tony.

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

? ? ? ? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

2. Procedures for selecting a technical expert for the technical
expert who will play the role of coordinator, as well as release
manager for the TZ database;

Nit: this sentence doesn't seem to parse well.

Otherwise, this looks like a sane direction to be headed in.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

? ? ? ? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

2. Procedures for selecting a technical expert for the technical
expert who will play the role of coordinator, as well as release
manager for the TZ database;

Nit: this sentence doesn't seem to parse well.

Otherwise, this looks like a sane direction to be headed in.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[Eliot Lear]

Dear Tony,

Post by Tony Finch

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

I think this could be a good solution to the problem.
Section 5: Maintenance and Distribution of Reference Code
Currently the maintainer of the TZ database also maintains reference
code. This software is currently distributed under the BSD license.
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

I've modified the text to state that several files are distributed under
license, and that no attempts shall be made to change that license (not
that this can easily happen).

Post by Tony Finch
Section 6 is supposed to be about the database but contains a misplaced
comment about the code's licence which correctly contradicts section 5.

Corrected.

Post by Tony Finch
There should be a section on the licensing of contributions, since the TZ
licence is more liberal than the IETF licence.

See next email to SM.

Eliot

[Marshall Eubanks]

Dear Elliot;

I have read your draft, and have two issues (which I think are also touched on here).

1.)

It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain.

While I certainly don't speak for the IESG,
I don't think that you are going to get such a ruling from the IETF. The IETF is not a court and
should not (IMO) be making assertions about other people's IPR.

You should (IMO) assert that it is public domain here, and let the IETF accept that assertion. That is probably the
best you are going to get on this point. (I wouldn't be surprised if ISOC and IANA have similar concerns.)

2.) It is not clear to me from your document who will hold the copyright in the code (i.e., _who_ will be
issuing the BSD license). If it is the IETF Trust, then it will have to be the "Simplified BSD License" we settled upon for IETF
code components.

3.) A minor point

This memo
states that moving forward the TZ database will be distributed with a
valid cryptographic signature.

You don't need to tell us what you are telling us. How about

Moving forward the TZ database SHOULD be distributed with a
valid cryptographic signature.


Regards
Marshall

Post by Eliot Lear
Dear Tony,

Post by Tony Finch

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

I think this could be a good solution to the problem.
Section 5: Maintenance and Distribution of Reference Code
Currently the maintainer of the TZ database also maintains reference
code. This software is currently distributed under the BSD license.
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

I've modified the text to state that several files are distributed under
license, and that no attempts shall be made to change that license (not
that this can easily happen).

Post by Tony Finch
Section 6 is supposed to be about the database but contains a misplaced
comment about the code's licence which correctly contradicts section 5.

Corrected.

Post by Tony Finch
There should be a section on the licensing of contributions, since the TZ
licence is more liberal than the IETF licence.

See next email to SM.
Eliot

[Eliot Lear]

Post by Marshall Eubanks
Dear Elliot;
I have read your draft, and have two issues (which I think are also touched on here).
1.)
It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain.
While I certainly don't speak for the IESG,
I don't think that you are going to get such a ruling from the IETF. The IETF is not a court and
should not (IMO) be making assertions about other people's IPR.
You should (IMO) assert that it is public domain here, and let the IETF accept that assertion. That is probably the
best you are going to get on this point. (I wouldn't be surprised if ISOC and IANA have similar concerns.)

Ok. Will change accordingly.

Post by Marshall Eubanks
2.) It is not clear to me from your document who will hold the copyright in the code (i.e., _who_ will be
issuing the BSD license). If it is the IETF Trust, then it will have to be the "Simplified BSD License" we settled upon for IETF
code components.

Only code that is licensed today? at this moment? is contemplated being
licensed at all, and that code that is license shall retain the license
it has. In this case it's three files that are distributed under
license from U.C.

Post by Marshall Eubanks
3.) A minor point
This memo
states that moving forward the TZ database will be distributed with a
valid cryptographic signature.
You don't need to tell us what you are telling us. How about
Moving forward the TZ database SHOULD be distributed with a
valid cryptographic signature.

Ok.

Thanks,

Eliot

[Eliot Lear]

Post by Marshall Eubanks
Dear Elliot;
I have read your draft, and have two issues (which I think are also touched on here).
1.)
It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain.
While I certainly don't speak for the IESG,
I don't think that you are going to get such a ruling from the IETF. The IETF is not a court and
should not (IMO) be making assertions about other people's IPR.
You should (IMO) assert that it is public domain here, and let the IETF accept that assertion. That is probably the
best you are going to get on this point. (I wouldn't be surprised if ISOC and IANA have similar concerns.)

Ok. Will change accordingly.

Post by Marshall Eubanks
2.) It is not clear to me from your document who will hold the copyright in the code (i.e., _who_ will be
issuing the BSD license). If it is the IETF Trust, then it will have to be the "Simplified BSD License" we settled upon for IETF
code components.

Only code that is licensed today? at this moment? is contemplated being
licensed at all, and that code that is license shall retain the license
it has. In this case it's three files that are distributed under
license from U.C.

Post by Marshall Eubanks
3.) A minor point
This memo
states that moving forward the TZ database will be distributed with a
valid cryptographic signature.
You don't need to tell us what you are telling us. How about
Moving forward the TZ database SHOULD be distributed with a
valid cryptographic signature.

Ok.

Thanks,

Eliot

[Marshall Eubanks]

Dear Elliot;

I have read your draft, and have two issues (which I think are also touched on here).

1.)

It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain.

While I certainly don't speak for the IESG,
I don't think that you are going to get such a ruling from the IETF. The IETF is not a court and
should not (IMO) be making assertions about other people's IPR.

You should (IMO) assert that it is public domain here, and let the IETF accept that assertion. That is probably the
best you are going to get on this point. (I wouldn't be surprised if ISOC and IANA have similar concerns.)

2.) It is not clear to me from your document who will hold the copyright in the code (i.e., _who_ will be
issuing the BSD license). If it is the IETF Trust, then it will have to be the "Simplified BSD License" we settled upon for IETF
code components.

3.) A minor point

This memo
states that moving forward the TZ database will be distributed with a
valid cryptographic signature.

You don't need to tell us what you are telling us. How about

Moving forward the TZ database SHOULD be distributed with a
valid cryptographic signature.


Regards
Marshall

Post by Eliot Lear
Dear Tony,

Post by Tony Finch

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

I think this could be a good solution to the problem.
Section 5: Maintenance and Distribution of Reference Code
Currently the maintainer of the TZ database also maintains reference
code. This software is currently distributed under the BSD license.
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

I've modified the text to state that several files are distributed under
license, and that no attempts shall be made to change that license (not
that this can easily happen).

Post by Tony Finch
Section 6 is supposed to be about the database but contains a misplaced
comment about the code's licence which correctly contradicts section 5.

Corrected.

Post by Tony Finch
There should be a section on the licensing of contributions, since the TZ
licence is more liberal than the IETF licence.

See next email to SM.
Eliot

[Eliot Lear]

Dear Tony,

Post by Tony Finch

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

I think this could be a good solution to the problem.
Section 5: Maintenance and Distribution of Reference Code
Currently the maintainer of the TZ database also maintains reference
code. This software is currently distributed under the BSD license.
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

I've modified the text to state that several files are distributed under
license, and that no attempts shall be made to change that license (not
that this can easily happen).

Post by Tony Finch
Section 6 is supposed to be about the database but contains a misplaced
comment about the code's licence which correctly contradicts section 5.

Corrected.

Post by Tony Finch
There should be a section on the licensing of contributions, since the TZ
licence is more liberal than the IETF licence.

See next email to SM.

Eliot

[SM]

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm
eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored
the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone
Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force

As the intended status of the document is BCP, I'll comment on it
from that angle. In Section 1:

"Those registries are coordinated by technical experts who are
designated by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."

For what it's worth, some of these registries might not fall under the IESG.

In Section 2:

'This list membership will be transitioned to the IETF mail server.
The TZ coordinator will continue to manage the list, in accordance
with rules of governance for non-WG mailing lists (including, for
example, the commonly used "Note Well" statement).'

Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

In Section 4:

"From time to time it will be necessary to replace a TZ Coordinator.
This could occur for a number of reasons:"

I suggest "appoint" instead of "replace".

"The IESG MUST use rough consensus of the TZ mailing
list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists."

As the document is a BCP, these requirement could be changed in future.

In Section 5:

"No change shall be made to the license without consultation and rough
consensus of the community."

The document uses "rough consensus" instead of consensus". The
barrier is lower for the former. The above text mentioned
"community". Is that the TZ community?

In Section 6:

"It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain."

I suggest replacing "IESG" with "IETF" as the IESG operates within the IETF.

"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."

I suggest putting code distribution under the IETF so that the legal
aspect falls under the IETF Trust. The following sentence could then
be removed:

"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."

I suggest removing "further" from the following sentence:

"No further ownership claims will be made by IANA, the IETF Trust,
or ISOC on the database."

In Section 7:

"The IANA will see that the role of TZ Coordinator is filled, based on
the procedures described above."

According to Section 4, it is the IESG that does that.

There is a MoU between IANA and the IETF for IETF protocols. There
has been various interpretations of that MoU. An alternative to
avoid non-technical concerns is to place the distribution of the
database under the RFC Editor and explore having the material with a
status similar to the Independent Submission Stream. I am not
suggesting a license change. The following text is an adaption from RFC 4846:

To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.

The Contributor, each named co-Contributor, and the organizations
represented above irrevocably and in perpetuity grant the rights
listed below to the Internet Community:

A. to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the
TZ database into languages other than English,

B to prepare derivative works (other than translations)
that are based on or incorporate all or part of the
TZ Contribution, or comment upon it. The license to such
derivative works shall not grant the IETF Trust, the IETF,
or other party preparing a derivative work any more rights
than the license to the original TZ Contribution, and

C. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names
that are included in the TZ Contribution solely in
connection with the reproduction, distribution, or
publication of the TZ Contribution and derivative
works.

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

[Eliot Lear]

SM,

Thanks again for the review. Once again, I will not advance this work
without support from this community. If you want to see this document
advance, please comment on it. Now please see below.

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm
eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored
the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone
Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force

As the intended status of the document is BCP, I'll comment on it from
"Those registries are coordinated by technical experts who are
designated by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
For what it's worth, some of these registries might not fall under the IESG.

That is from RFC 5226.

'This list membership will be transitioned to the IETF mail server.
The TZ coordinator will continue to manage the list, in accordance
with rules of governance for non-WG mailing lists (including, for
example, the commonly used "Note Well" statement).'
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property
claims based on their contributions.

"From time to time it will be necessary to replace a TZ Coordinator.
This could occur for a number of reasons:"
I suggest "appoint" instead of "replace".

Ok.

"The IESG MUST use rough consensus of the TZ mailing
list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists."
As the document is a BCP, these requirement could be changed in future.

True. This is what we are saying today.

"No change shall be made to the license without consultation and rough
consensus of the community."
The document uses "rough consensus" instead of consensus". The
barrier is lower for the former. The above text mentioned
"community". Is that the TZ community?

In fact I think this text needs to be reworked. I don't think we really
CAN or SHOULD change the license terms for something that is either (a)
already licensed by someone else or (b) in the public domain. Again,
the intent is to maintain the status quo from this regard, but to allow
for some future additions that might require some sort of protection
(tho what I cannot actually fathom). How about just dropping everything
after "license" and inserting ", should one exist"?

"It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain."
I suggest replacing "IESG" with "IETF" as the IESG operates within the IETF.

added IETF (should we all agree).

"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."
I suggest putting code distribution under the IETF so that the legal
aspect falls under the IETF Trust.
"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."

I don't understand your intent. I do not want to remove text here
without a suggested replacement.

"No further ownership claims will be made by IANA, the IETF Trust,
or ISOC on the database."

Done

"The IANA will see that the role of TZ Coordinator is filled, based on
the procedures described above."
According to Section 4, it is the IESG that does that.

Changed to:

The IANA will assist the IESG, as required, in filling of the TZ
Coordinator,, based on the procedures described above.

Read: let the IESG know if the TZ coordinator has resigned, grant
access, revoke access, as required.

There is a MoU between IANA and the IETF for IETF protocols. There
has been various interpretations of that MoU. An alternative to avoid
non-technical concerns is to place the distribution of the database
under the RFC Editor and explore having the material with a status
similar to the Independent Submission Stream. I am not suggesting a
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.
The Contributor, each named co-Contributor, and the organizations
represented above irrevocably and in perpetuity grant the rights
A. to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the
TZ database into languages other than English,
B to prepare derivative works (other than translations)
that are based on or incorporate all or part of the
TZ Contribution, or comment upon it. The license to such
derivative works shall not grant the IETF Trust, the IETF,
or other party preparing a derivative work any more rights
than the license to the original TZ Contribution, and
C. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names
that are included in the TZ Contribution solely in
connection with the reproduction, distribution, or
publication of the TZ Contribution and derivative
works.

That sounds okay, but I would like to hear from others. Is this
actually required, given the Note Well statement?

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

Yes.

Dealt with.

Eliot

[Tony Finch]

Post by Eliot Lear

Post by SM
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property
claims based on their contributions.

The Note Well rules say the opposite.

The IETF only requires a limited copyright licence that most notably does
not permit the IETF to sublicence any contributions. This isn't sufficient
for the TZ project, since TZ users need to be able to modify and
redistribute it. See RFC 5378 section 5.3 nd 5.4 and note that
sublicensing to the general public is not included.

I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions
are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative
Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

Patents are perhaps less of an issue since the TZ project has ignored them
in the past. The IETF's position is marginally stronger: it requires
disclosure of any patents that claim to cover the technology, but it does
not require any licence to the IETF or even a promise to licence to
people using the IETF's work.

I think the IETF's requirements for trademarks are suitable for the TZ
project.


By the way, did you see my earlier message which points out some errors in
your draft's text about licensing?

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.time.tz/3438

Post by Eliot Lear

Post by SM
I am not suggesting a license change. The following text is an
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.

I note that SM's suggested text does not include an equivalent licence to
organizations other than the IETF. RFC 4846 says "grant the same license
to those organizations and to the community as a whole" which is perhaps
broad enough (and, oddly, seems to be more liberal than the IETF
contributors' licence).

However this isn't a public domain licence so it *is* a change to the
existing TZ licence.

Tony.

[Eliot Lear]

Tony,

Thanks for your contributions. More comments later.

Eliot

Post by Tony Finch

Post by Eliot Lear

Post by SM
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property
claims based on their contributions.

The Note Well rules say the opposite.
The IETF only requires a limited copyright licence that most notably does
not permit the IETF to sublicence any contributions. This isn't sufficient
for the TZ project, since TZ users need to be able to modify and
redistribute it. See RFC 5378 section 5.3 nd 5.4 and note that
sublicensing to the general public is not included.
I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions
are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative
Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
Patents are perhaps less of an issue since the TZ project has ignored them
in the past. The IETF's position is marginally stronger: it requires
disclosure of any patents that claim to cover the technology, but it does
not require any licence to the IETF or even a promise to licence to
people using the IETF's work.
I think the IETF's requirements for trademarks are suitable for the TZ
project.
By the way, did you see my earlier message which points out some errors in
your draft's text about licensing?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.time.tz/3438

Post by Eliot Lear

Post by SM
I am not suggesting a license change. The following text is an
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.

I note that SM's suggested text does not include an equivalent licence to
organizations other than the IETF. RFC 4846 says "grant the same license
to those organizations and to the community as a whole" which is perhaps
broad enough (and, oddly, seems to be more liberal than the IETF
contributors' licence).
However this isn't a public domain licence so it *is* a change to the
existing TZ licence.
Tony.

[Eliot Lear]

Tony,

Thanks for your contributions. More comments later.

Eliot

Post by Tony Finch

Post by Eliot Lear

Post by SM
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property
claims based on their contributions.

The Note Well rules say the opposite.
The IETF only requires a limited copyright licence that most notably does
not permit the IETF to sublicence any contributions. This isn't sufficient
for the TZ project, since TZ users need to be able to modify and
redistribute it. See RFC 5378 section 5.3 nd 5.4 and note that
sublicensing to the general public is not included.
I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions
are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative
Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
Patents are perhaps less of an issue since the TZ project has ignored them
in the past. The IETF's position is marginally stronger: it requires
disclosure of any patents that claim to cover the technology, but it does
not require any licence to the IETF or even a promise to licence to
people using the IETF's work.
I think the IETF's requirements for trademarks are suitable for the TZ
project.
By the way, did you see my earlier message which points out some errors in
your draft's text about licensing?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.time.tz/3438

Post by Eliot Lear

Post by SM
I am not suggesting a license change. The following text is an
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.

I note that SM's suggested text does not include an equivalent licence to
organizations other than the IETF. RFC 4846 says "grant the same license
to those organizations and to the community as a whole" which is perhaps
broad enough (and, oddly, seems to be more liberal than the IETF
contributors' licence).
However this isn't a public domain licence so it *is* a change to the
existing TZ licence.
Tony.

[SM]

Hi Eliot, Tony,

Post by Eliot Lear
Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property
claims based on their contributions.

Tony Finch commented on the "Note Well".

Post by Eliot Lear
True. This is what we are saying today.

Some of the pointed I mentioned was so that people fully understand
what to expect.

Post by Eliot Lear
In fact I think this text needs to be reworked. I don't think we really
CAN or SHOULD change the license terms for something that is either (a)
already licensed by someone else or (b) in the public domain. Again,
the intent is to maintain the status quo from this regard, but to allow
for some future additions that might require some sort of protection
(tho what I cannot actually fathom). How about just dropping everything
after "license" and inserting ", should one exist"?

Please note that nothing in this message or any message I post on
this thread should be considered as legal advice.

There are what are called inbound and outbound "rights". (b) falls
under outbound "rights". Getting into a licensing discussion or
changes to the hosting changes the status quo. That cannot be
avoided if this community would like to have a future time zone
home. I'll comment on this again below.

Post by Eliot Lear
I don't understand your intent. I do not want to remove text here
without a suggested replacement.

Getting into "competent court orders" opens the way for more
problems. The time zone database currently flies under the radar for
historical reasons. Creating a structure creates visibility and
opens the way for politically correct or other claims. Maybe this is
far-fetched.

Post by Eliot Lear
The IANA will assist the IESG, as required, in filling of the TZ
Coordinator,, based on the procedures described above.
Read: let the IESG know if the TZ coordinator has resigned, grant
access, revoke access, as required.

Ok.

Post by Eliot Lear
I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions
are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative
Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

It would be good if it said "public domain".

Post by Eliot Lear
I note that SM's suggested text does not include an equivalent licence to
organizations other than the IETF. RFC 4846 says "grant the same license
to those organizations and to the community as a whole" which is perhaps
broad enough (and, oddly, seems to be more liberal than the IETF
contributors' licence).
However this isn't a public domain licence so it *is* a change to the
existing TZ licence.

As I mentioned previously, I am not arguing for a change in the
license. The text I quoted is not appropriate for "public domain"
material. It is more liberal than the IETF contributors'
license. It does not try to identify "code", i.e. code falls under
the same license as the text. It allows derivative work. In
essence, it does not protect the TZ database except for permission to
compile and public the original work.

I'll adapt some text to elaborate on "rights":

"Certain documents, including those produced by the U.S. government
and those which are in the public domain, may not be protected by the
same copyright and other legal rights as other documents.
Nevertheless, we ask each Contributor to grant to the IETF the same
rights as he or she would grant, and to make the same
representations, as though the IETF Contribution were protected by
the same legal rights as other documents, and as though the
Contributor could be able to grant these rights. We ask for these
grants and representations only to the extent that the Contribution
may be protected. We believe they are necessary to protect the IETF
all IETF participants and also because the IETF does not have the
resources or wherewithal to make any independent investigation as to
the actual proprietary status of any document submitted to it."

The gist here is to assign rights to avoid legal conundrums. That
should allay IETF concerns. I am not sure how to get "public domain"
in there if this community wants a formal home to cover
everything. If the issues can be separated, it may make matters
easier. Some points to consider are:

(i) A structure for having a stable TZ coordinator

(ii) A distribution mechanism to publish the database and to host
the TZ mailing list

(iii) How to resolve the licensing issue

The structure can be addressed by this BCP or a RFC is the
appropriate stream. The distribution mechanism is about selecting a
party which acts as a service provider and not one who can claim
ownership over the database. The third point depends on the second
one. A provider may require clear licensing guidance for obvious
reasons. If the distribution mechanism is lightweight, the TZ
community could try and get away with

"the public-domain time zone database contains code and data that
represent the
history of local time for many representative locations around the globe."

I suggested the RFC Editor site as a continuity of the
"long-standing" practice to distribute the TZ database under the
current terms. You need buy-in from people who can help make that
happen. You can say that messages to the mailing list are placed in
the public-domain. If you use the line quoted above for the TZ
database, you might be able to get around the licensing issue. The
TZ coordinator then oversees the publication of the database.

Regards,
-sm

[Tony Finch]

Post by SM

Post by Tony Finch
I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions
are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative
Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

It would be good if it said "public domain".

I agree, but this is not completely possible. The reason CC0 exists is
because some jurisdictions do not allow people to give up all their rights
in a work, so it is not sufficient to simply slap a "public domain" notice
on it. The risk is that a previous contributor could succumb to the dark
side and start enforcing rights against TZ users that they failed to give
up properly.

Post by SM
The gist here is to assign rights to avoid legal conundrums.

Yes. Your adapted text on rights was on the button.

Post by SM
If the issues can be separated, it may make matters easier. Some points
(i) A structure for having a stable TZ coordinator
(ii) A distribution mechanism to publish the database and to host the TZ
mailing list
(iii) How to resolve the licensing issue

I think that covers it :-)

Post by SM
I suggested the RFC Editor site as a continuity of the "long-standing"
practice to distribute the TZ database under the current terms.

The RFC editor's site concentrates on the document publishing process and
the archive of published immutable documents. The TZ database is more like
an IANA registry, so I think Eliot and Paul are right to suggest IANA as
the new home.


The IETF "Note Well" arrangement is nice since it is light-weight enough
that it doesn't get in the way of contributions, while at the same time
making the licensing situation clear. The only difficulty is that the
licence granted by IETF contributors is not sufficient for the TZ project,
so if the project were to move to the IETF it would need a special "Note
Well".

For example:

Note Well

Any submission to the TZ project intended by the Contributor for
publication as part of the TZ Reference Code or TZ Database
distributions and any statement made within the context of TZ project
activity is considered an "TZ Contribution." Such statements include
written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which
are addressed to:

* The TZ mailing list
* The TZ co-ordinator
* The IANA

All TZ Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC wxyz.

Statements made outside of the TZ mailing list or other function, that
are clearly not intended to be input to the TZ project, are not TZ
Contributions in the context of this notice.

Please consult RFC wxyz for details.

A participant in the TZ project is deemed to accept all IETF rules of
process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG Statements.

I removed stuff about face-to-face meetings, but otherwise this is just
s/IETF/TZ/g on the standard "Note Well".

The RFC itself needs some text explaining the details. Something like:


Terminology

TZ Project ...

TZ Database ("tzdata") ...

TZ Reference Code ("tzcode") ...

A TZ User is any person or organization who obtains a copy of the tzdata
and/or tzcode from IANA.

Terms related to licensing of rights are defined in section 1 of RFC 5378.
The TZ mailing list counts as an IETF mailing list in this context.

A TZ Contribution is a Contribution to the TZ Database or TZ Reference
Code made via the TZ mailing list or to the TZ Coordinator.

A TZ Contributor is an individual who makes a TZ Contribution.


Rights in TZ Contributions

The TZ project must obtain from TZ Contributors the right to publish a
TZ Contribution as part of the TZ Database or the TZ Reference Code.

The tzdata and tzcode have historically been public domain works owing
to their being maintained by a US Government employee. A primary
objective is to continue to make the tzdata and tzcode available under
similarly relaxed terms to TZ Users. To this end the TZ project must
obtain an equivalent grant or waiver of rights from its Contributors.

It is generally agreed that it is not sufficient to simply dedicate
Contributions to the public domain. While this may work in the USA there
is significant doubt that it works in other jurisdictions, especially
those with a strong concept of moral rights. Hence Creative Commons have
retired their public domain dedication tools in favour of a more explicit
waiver of rights called CC0.

TZ Contributors are required to grant rights to the IETF Trust, which
holds all IETF-related intellectual property on behalf of the IETF
community, including the TZ project. The IETF Trust will, in turn, grant
a sublicense of these rights to all TZ users.

Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10 of RFC 5378 apply to TZ
contributions in the same way as other IETF contributions. The rights
granted by TZ Contributors to the IETF Trust and the rights granted by
the IETF Trust to TZ users differ from those set out in sections 5.3 and
5.4 of RFC 5378 and the following sections apply instead.


Rights Granted by TZ Contributors

Contributors make their TZ Contributions available to the TZ Project and
the IETF Trust under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal licence.
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/


Sublicenses to TZ users by the IETF Trust

The IETF Trust will sublicense the rights granted to it under the previous
section to all TZ users for any purpose.



Tony.

[Tony Finch]

Post by SM

Post by Tony Finch
I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions
are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative
Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

It would be good if it said "public domain".

I agree, but this is not completely possible. The reason CC0 exists is
because some jurisdictions do not allow people to give up all their rights
in a work, so it is not sufficient to simply slap a "public domain" notice
on it. The risk is that a previous contributor could succumb to the dark
side and start enforcing rights against TZ users that they failed to give
up properly.

Post by SM
The gist here is to assign rights to avoid legal conundrums.

Yes. Your adapted text on rights was on the button.

Post by SM
If the issues can be separated, it may make matters easier. Some points
(i) A structure for having a stable TZ coordinator
(ii) A distribution mechanism to publish the database and to host the TZ
mailing list
(iii) How to resolve the licensing issue

I think that covers it :-)

Post by SM
I suggested the RFC Editor site as a continuity of the "long-standing"
practice to distribute the TZ database under the current terms.

The RFC editor's site concentrates on the document publishing process and
the archive of published immutable documents. The TZ database is more like
an IANA registry, so I think Eliot and Paul are right to suggest IANA as
the new home.


The IETF "Note Well" arrangement is nice since it is light-weight enough
that it doesn't get in the way of contributions, while at the same time
making the licensing situation clear. The only difficulty is that the
licence granted by IETF contributors is not sufficient for the TZ project,
so if the project were to move to the IETF it would need a special "Note
Well".

For example:

Note Well

Any submission to the TZ project intended by the Contributor for
publication as part of the TZ Reference Code or TZ Database
distributions and any statement made within the context of TZ project
activity is considered an "TZ Contribution." Such statements include
written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which
are addressed to:

* The TZ mailing list
* The TZ co-ordinator
* The IANA

All TZ Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC wxyz.

Statements made outside of the TZ mailing list or other function, that
are clearly not intended to be input to the TZ project, are not TZ
Contributions in the context of this notice.

Please consult RFC wxyz for details.

A participant in the TZ project is deemed to accept all IETF rules of
process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG Statements.

I removed stuff about face-to-face meetings, but otherwise this is just
s/IETF/TZ/g on the standard "Note Well".

The RFC itself needs some text explaining the details. Something like:


Terminology

TZ Project ...

TZ Database ("tzdata") ...

TZ Reference Code ("tzcode") ...

A TZ User is any person or organization who obtains a copy of the tzdata
and/or tzcode from IANA.

Terms related to licensing of rights are defined in section 1 of RFC 5378.
The TZ mailing list counts as an IETF mailing list in this context.

A TZ Contribution is a Contribution to the TZ Database or TZ Reference
Code made via the TZ mailing list or to the TZ Coordinator.

A TZ Contributor is an individual who makes a TZ Contribution.


Rights in TZ Contributions

The TZ project must obtain from TZ Contributors the right to publish a
TZ Contribution as part of the TZ Database or the TZ Reference Code.

The tzdata and tzcode have historically been public domain works owing
to their being maintained by a US Government employee. A primary
objective is to continue to make the tzdata and tzcode available under
similarly relaxed terms to TZ Users. To this end the TZ project must
obtain an equivalent grant or waiver of rights from its Contributors.

It is generally agreed that it is not sufficient to simply dedicate
Contributions to the public domain. While this may work in the USA there
is significant doubt that it works in other jurisdictions, especially
those with a strong concept of moral rights. Hence Creative Commons have
retired their public domain dedication tools in favour of a more explicit
waiver of rights called CC0.

TZ Contributors are required to grant rights to the IETF Trust, which
holds all IETF-related intellectual property on behalf of the IETF
community, including the TZ project. The IETF Trust will, in turn, grant
a sublicense of these rights to all TZ users.

Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10 of RFC 5378 apply to TZ
contributions in the same way as other IETF contributions. The rights
granted by TZ Contributors to the IETF Trust and the rights granted by
the IETF Trust to TZ users differ from those set out in sections 5.3 and
5.4 of RFC 5378 and the following sections apply instead.


Rights Granted by TZ Contributors

Contributors make their TZ Contributions available to the TZ Project and
the IETF Trust under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal licence.
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/


Sublicenses to TZ users by the IETF Trust

The IETF Trust will sublicense the rights granted to it under the previous
section to all TZ users for any purpose.



Tony.

[Tony Finch]

Post by Eliot Lear

Post by SM
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property
claims based on their contributions.

The Note Well rules say the opposite.

The IETF only requires a limited copyright licence that most notably does
not permit the IETF to sublicence any contributions. This isn't sufficient
for the TZ project, since TZ users need to be able to modify and
redistribute it. See RFC 5378 section 5.3 nd 5.4 and note that
sublicensing to the general public is not included.

I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions
are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative
Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

Patents are perhaps less of an issue since the TZ project has ignored them
in the past. The IETF's position is marginally stronger: it requires
disclosure of any patents that claim to cover the technology, but it does
not require any licence to the IETF or even a promise to licence to
people using the IETF's work.

I think the IETF's requirements for trademarks are suitable for the TZ
project.


By the way, did you see my earlier message which points out some errors in
your draft's text about licensing?

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.time.tz/3438

Post by Eliot Lear

Post by SM
I am not suggesting a license change. The following text is an
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.

I note that SM's suggested text does not include an equivalent licence to
organizations other than the IETF. RFC 4846 says "grant the same license
to those organizations and to the community as a whole" which is perhaps
broad enough (and, oddly, seems to be more liberal than the IETF
contributors' licence).

However this isn't a public domain licence so it *is* a change to the
existing TZ licence.

Tony.

[SM]

Hi Eliot, Tony,

Post by Eliot Lear
Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property
claims based on their contributions.

Tony Finch commented on the "Note Well".

Post by Eliot Lear
True. This is what we are saying today.

Some of the pointed I mentioned was so that people fully understand
what to expect.

Post by Eliot Lear
In fact I think this text needs to be reworked. I don't think we really
CAN or SHOULD change the license terms for something that is either (a)
already licensed by someone else or (b) in the public domain. Again,
the intent is to maintain the status quo from this regard, but to allow
for some future additions that might require some sort of protection
(tho what I cannot actually fathom). How about just dropping everything
after "license" and inserting ", should one exist"?

Please note that nothing in this message or any message I post on
this thread should be considered as legal advice.

There are what are called inbound and outbound "rights". (b) falls
under outbound "rights". Getting into a licensing discussion or
changes to the hosting changes the status quo. That cannot be
avoided if this community would like to have a future time zone
home. I'll comment on this again below.

Post by Eliot Lear
I don't understand your intent. I do not want to remove text here
without a suggested replacement.

Getting into "competent court orders" opens the way for more
problems. The time zone database currently flies under the radar for
historical reasons. Creating a structure creates visibility and
opens the way for politically correct or other claims. Maybe this is
far-fetched.

Post by Eliot Lear
The IANA will assist the IESG, as required, in filling of the TZ
Coordinator,, based on the procedures described above.
Read: let the IESG know if the TZ coordinator has resigned, grant
access, revoke access, as required.

Ok.

Post by Eliot Lear
I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions
are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative
Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

It would be good if it said "public domain".

Post by Eliot Lear
I note that SM's suggested text does not include an equivalent licence to
organizations other than the IETF. RFC 4846 says "grant the same license
to those organizations and to the community as a whole" which is perhaps
broad enough (and, oddly, seems to be more liberal than the IETF
contributors' licence).
However this isn't a public domain licence so it *is* a change to the
existing TZ licence.

As I mentioned previously, I am not arguing for a change in the
license. The text I quoted is not appropriate for "public domain"
material. It is more liberal than the IETF contributors'
license. It does not try to identify "code", i.e. code falls under
the same license as the text. It allows derivative work. In
essence, it does not protect the TZ database except for permission to
compile and public the original work.

I'll adapt some text to elaborate on "rights":

"Certain documents, including those produced by the U.S. government
and those which are in the public domain, may not be protected by the
same copyright and other legal rights as other documents.
Nevertheless, we ask each Contributor to grant to the IETF the same
rights as he or she would grant, and to make the same
representations, as though the IETF Contribution were protected by
the same legal rights as other documents, and as though the
Contributor could be able to grant these rights. We ask for these
grants and representations only to the extent that the Contribution
may be protected. We believe they are necessary to protect the IETF
all IETF participants and also because the IETF does not have the
resources or wherewithal to make any independent investigation as to
the actual proprietary status of any document submitted to it."

The gist here is to assign rights to avoid legal conundrums. That
should allay IETF concerns. I am not sure how to get "public domain"
in there if this community wants a formal home to cover
everything. If the issues can be separated, it may make matters
easier. Some points to consider are:

(i) A structure for having a stable TZ coordinator

(ii) A distribution mechanism to publish the database and to host
the TZ mailing list

(iii) How to resolve the licensing issue

The structure can be addressed by this BCP or a RFC is the
appropriate stream. The distribution mechanism is about selecting a
party which acts as a service provider and not one who can claim
ownership over the database. The third point depends on the second
one. A provider may require clear licensing guidance for obvious
reasons. If the distribution mechanism is lightweight, the TZ
community could try and get away with

"the public-domain time zone database contains code and data that
represent the
history of local time for many representative locations around the globe."

I suggested the RFC Editor site as a continuity of the
"long-standing" practice to distribute the TZ database under the
current terms. You need buy-in from people who can help make that
happen. You can say that messages to the mailing list are placed in
the public-domain. If you use the line quoted above for the TZ
database, you might be able to get around the licensing issue. The
TZ coordinator then oversees the publication of the database.

Regards,
-sm

[Eliot Lear]

SM,

Thanks again for the review. Once again, I will not advance this work
without support from this community. If you want to see this document
advance, please comment on it. Now please see below.

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm
eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored
the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone
Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force

As the intended status of the document is BCP, I'll comment on it from
"Those registries are coordinated by technical experts who are
designated by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
For what it's worth, some of these registries might not fall under the IESG.

That is from RFC 5226.

'This list membership will be transitioned to the IETF mail server.
The TZ coordinator will continue to manage the list, in accordance
with rules of governance for non-WG mailing lists (including, for
example, the commonly used "Note Well" statement).'
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property
claims based on their contributions.

"From time to time it will be necessary to replace a TZ Coordinator.
This could occur for a number of reasons:"
I suggest "appoint" instead of "replace".

Ok.

"The IESG MUST use rough consensus of the TZ mailing
list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists."
As the document is a BCP, these requirement could be changed in future.

True. This is what we are saying today.

"No change shall be made to the license without consultation and rough
consensus of the community."
The document uses "rough consensus" instead of consensus". The
barrier is lower for the former. The above text mentioned
"community". Is that the TZ community?

In fact I think this text needs to be reworked. I don't think we really
CAN or SHOULD change the license terms for something that is either (a)
already licensed by someone else or (b) in the public domain. Again,
the intent is to maintain the status quo from this regard, but to allow
for some future additions that might require some sort of protection
(tho what I cannot actually fathom). How about just dropping everything
after "license" and inserting ", should one exist"?

"It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain."
I suggest replacing "IESG" with "IETF" as the IESG operates within the IETF.

added IETF (should we all agree).

"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."
I suggest putting code distribution under the IETF so that the legal
aspect falls under the IETF Trust.
"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."

I don't understand your intent. I do not want to remove text here
without a suggested replacement.

"No further ownership claims will be made by IANA, the IETF Trust,
or ISOC on the database."

Done

"The IANA will see that the role of TZ Coordinator is filled, based on
the procedures described above."
According to Section 4, it is the IESG that does that.

Changed to:

The IANA will assist the IESG, as required, in filling of the TZ
Coordinator,, based on the procedures described above.

Read: let the IESG know if the TZ coordinator has resigned, grant
access, revoke access, as required.

There is a MoU between IANA and the IETF for IETF protocols. There
has been various interpretations of that MoU. An alternative to avoid
non-technical concerns is to place the distribution of the database
under the RFC Editor and explore having the material with a status
similar to the Independent Submission Stream. I am not suggesting a
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.
The Contributor, each named co-Contributor, and the organizations
represented above irrevocably and in perpetuity grant the rights
A. to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the
TZ database into languages other than English,
B to prepare derivative works (other than translations)
that are based on or incorporate all or part of the
TZ Contribution, or comment upon it. The license to such
derivative works shall not grant the IETF Trust, the IETF,
or other party preparing a derivative work any more rights
than the license to the original TZ Contribution, and
C. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names
that are included in the TZ Contribution solely in
connection with the reproduction, distribution, or
publication of the TZ Contribution and derivative
works.

That sounds okay, but I would like to hear from others. Is this
actually required, given the Note Well statement?

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

Yes.

Dealt with.

Eliot

[Eliot Lear]

Hi SM,

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm
eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored
the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone
Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force

As the intended status of the document is BCP, I'll comment on it from
"Those registries are coordinated by technical experts who are
designated by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
For what it's worth, some of these registries might not fall under the IESG.
'This list membership will be transitioned to the IETF mail server.
The TZ coordinator will continue to manage the list, in accordance
with rules of governance for non-WG mailing lists (including, for
example, the commonly used "Note Well" statement).'
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

This relates to Tony's comments, and your later email. See forthcoming
reply.

"From time to time it will be necessary to replace a TZ Coordinator.
This could occur for a number of reasons:"
I suggest "appoint" instead of "replace".

Done.

"The IESG MUST use rough consensus of the TZ mailing
list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists."
As the document is a BCP, these requirement could be changed in future.

True.

"No change shall be made to the license without consultation and rough
consensus of the community."
The document uses "rough consensus" instead of consensus". The
barrier is lower for the former. The above text mentioned
"community". Is that the TZ community?

Changed. Rough consensus is not sufficient to change license terms on
these licenses.

"It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain."
I suggest replacing "IESG" with "IETF" as the IESG operates within the IETF.

Ok.

"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."
I suggest putting code distribution under the IETF so that the legal
aspect falls under the IETF Trust. The following sentence could then
"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."

I do not believe people wish to change the terms of distribution in this
process.

"No further ownership claims will be made by IANA, the IETF Trust,
or ISOC on the database."

Done.

"The IANA will see that the role of TZ Coordinator is filled, based on
the procedures described above."

Changed to "The IANA will assist the IESG, as required,..."

According to Section 4, it is the IESG that does that.
There is a MoU between IANA and the IETF for IETF protocols. There
has been various interpretations of that MoU. An alternative to avoid
non-technical concerns is to place the distribution of the database
under the RFC Editor and explore having the material with a status
similar to the Independent Submission Stream. I am not suggesting a
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.
The Contributor, each named co-Contributor, and the organizations
represented above irrevocably and in perpetuity grant the rights
A. to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the
TZ database into languages other than English,
B to prepare derivative works (other than translations)
that are based on or incorporate all or part of the
TZ Contribution, or comment upon it. The license to such
derivative works shall not grant the IETF Trust, the IETF,
or other party preparing a derivative work any more rights
than the license to the original TZ Contribution, and
C. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names
that are included in the TZ Contribution solely in
connection with the reproduction, distribution, or
publication of the TZ Contribution and derivative
works.

Added.

Eliot

[SM]

Hi Eliot,

Post by Eliot Lear
I do not believe people wish to change the terms of distribution in this
process.

The status of the data managed under the IANA Function is
unclear. The informal way the database has been, and is currently,
maintained has contributed to its success. Formalizing the process
without the necessary paperwork leaves the door open to ownership
issues. BCPs are only effective within the IETF.

Regards,
-sm

[Eliot Lear]

SM,

The status of the data managed under the IANA Function is unclear.
The informal way the database has been, and is currently, maintained
has contributed to its success. Formalizing the process without the
necessary paperwork leaves the door open to ownership issues. BCPs
are only effective within the IETF.

As you will read in the current version, we were very clear, thanks to
advice from Marshall.

Eliot

[Jonathan Leffler]

Post by Eliot Lear
As you will read in the current version, we were very clear, thanks to
advice from Marshall.

Is the current version of the draft available online? [Answer: yes.]

The original email in this series gives the URL
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00 but it
appears to be dated 2010-10-18 still.

[...let me try 01 at the end...]

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-01

OK - that finds a draft dated 2010-12-17.

Interestingly, if you change the 01 to 02 (or 99), it switches you back to
the 01 version, which is the latest. Neat! Consequently, the following URL
should land you on the most recent draft for the foreseeable future.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-99

[Jonathan Leffler]

Post by Eliot Lear
As you will read in the current version, we were very clear, thanks to
advice from Marshall.

Is the current version of the draft available online? [Answer: yes.]

The original email in this series gives the URL
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00 but it
appears to be dated 2010-10-18 still.

[...let me try 01 at the end...]

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-01

OK - that finds a draft dated 2010-12-17.

Interestingly, if you change the 01 to 02 (or 99), it switches you back to
the 01 version, which is the latest. Neat! Consequently, the following URL
should land you on the most recent draft for the foreseeable future.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-99

[Eliot Lear]

SM,

The status of the data managed under the IANA Function is unclear.
The informal way the database has been, and is currently, maintained
has contributed to its success. Formalizing the process without the
necessary paperwork leaves the door open to ownership issues. BCPs
are only effective within the IETF.

As you will read in the current version, we were very clear, thanks to
advice from Marshall.

Eliot

[SM]

Hi Eliot,

Post by Eliot Lear
I do not believe people wish to change the terms of distribution in this
process.

The status of the data managed under the IANA Function is
unclear. The informal way the database has been, and is currently,
maintained has contributed to its success. Formalizing the process
without the necessary paperwork leaves the door open to ownership
issues. BCPs are only effective within the IETF.

Regards,
-sm

[Eliot Lear]

Hi SM,

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm
eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored
the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone
Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force

As the intended status of the document is BCP, I'll comment on it from
"Those registries are coordinated by technical experts who are
designated by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
For what it's worth, some of these registries might not fall under the IESG.
'This list membership will be transitioned to the IETF mail server.
The TZ coordinator will continue to manage the list, in accordance
with rules of governance for non-WG mailing lists (including, for
example, the commonly used "Note Well" statement).'
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

This relates to Tony's comments, and your later email. See forthcoming
reply.

"From time to time it will be necessary to replace a TZ Coordinator.
This could occur for a number of reasons:"
I suggest "appoint" instead of "replace".

Done.

"The IESG MUST use rough consensus of the TZ mailing
list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists."
As the document is a BCP, these requirement could be changed in future.

True.

"No change shall be made to the license without consultation and rough
consensus of the community."
The document uses "rough consensus" instead of consensus". The
barrier is lower for the former. The above text mentioned
"community". Is that the TZ community?

Changed. Rough consensus is not sufficient to change license terms on
these licenses.

"It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain."
I suggest replacing "IESG" with "IETF" as the IESG operates within the IETF.

Ok.

"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."
I suggest putting code distribution under the IETF so that the legal
aspect falls under the IETF Trust. The following sentence could then
"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."

I do not believe people wish to change the terms of distribution in this
process.

"No further ownership claims will be made by IANA, the IETF Trust,
or ISOC on the database."

Done.

"The IANA will see that the role of TZ Coordinator is filled, based on
the procedures described above."

Changed to "The IANA will assist the IESG, as required,..."

According to Section 4, it is the IESG that does that.
There is a MoU between IANA and the IETF for IETF protocols. There
has been various interpretations of that MoU. An alternative to avoid
non-technical concerns is to place the distribution of the database
under the RFC Editor and explore having the material with a status
similar to the Independent Submission Stream. I am not suggesting a
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.
The Contributor, each named co-Contributor, and the organizations
represented above irrevocably and in perpetuity grant the rights
A. to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the
TZ database into languages other than English,
B to prepare derivative works (other than translations)
that are based on or incorporate all or part of the
TZ Contribution, or comment upon it. The license to such
derivative works shall not grant the IETF Trust, the IETF,
or other party preparing a derivative work any more rights
than the license to the original TZ Contribution, and
C. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names
that are included in the TZ Contribution solely in
connection with the reproduction, distribution, or
publication of the TZ Contribution and derivative
works.

Added.

Eliot

[Stephen Colebourne]

I support the move of the TZ DB to an organisation as a new home. My
preference would be CLDR, as I think that the data is entirely within
the cultural remit there. However, since I'm not putting in effort
myself to make that happen, I will support the IETF home.
Stephen
Co-spec lead, JSR-310

On 21 October 2010 14:11, Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]

? ? ? ?http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00
Comments on how the draft can be improved are welcome. Also welcome: feedback on whether the proposed approach meets the needs of folks on the time zone mailing list--the proposed approach can't and won't go forward without support from the time zone community.
The document includes electronic mail addresses for Eliot and Paul; general comments can also be sent to the time zone mailing list.
? ? ? ?--ado

[Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]]

In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) web site:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

Comments on how the draft can be improved are welcome. Also welcome: feedback on whether the proposed approach meets the needs of folks on the time zone mailing list--the proposed approach can't and won't go forward without support from the time zone community.

The document includes electronic mail addresses for Eliot and Paul; general comments can also be sent to the time zone mailing list.

--ado

[Tony Finch]

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00

I think this could be a good solution to the problem.

A few suggestions:

Section 5: Maintenance and Distribution of Reference Code

Currently the maintainer of the TZ database also maintains reference
code. This software is currently distributed under the BSD license.

Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

Section 6 is supposed to be about the database but contains a misplaced
comment about the code's licence which correctly contradicts section 5.

There should be a section on the licensing of contributions, since the TZ
licence is more liberal than the IETF licence.

Tony.

[SM]

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm
eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored
the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone
Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force

As the intended status of the document is BCP, I'll comment on it
from that angle. In Section 1:

"Those registries are coordinated by technical experts who are
designated by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."

For what it's worth, some of these registries might not fall under the IESG.

In Section 2:

'This list membership will be transitioned to the IETF mail server.
The TZ coordinator will continue to manage the list, in accordance
with rules of governance for non-WG mailing lists (including, for
example, the commonly used "Note Well" statement).'

Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?

In Section 4:

"From time to time it will be necessary to replace a TZ Coordinator.
This could occur for a number of reasons:"

I suggest "appoint" instead of "replace".

"The IESG MUST use rough consensus of the TZ mailing
list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists."

As the document is a BCP, these requirement could be changed in future.

In Section 5:

"No change shall be made to the license without consultation and rough
consensus of the community."

The document uses "rough consensus" instead of consensus". The
barrier is lower for the former. The above text mentioned
"community". Is that the TZ community?

In Section 6:

"It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database
itself is public domain."

I suggest replacing "IESG" with "IETF" as the IESG operates within the IETF.

"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."

I suggest putting code distribution under the IETF so that the legal
aspect falls under the IETF Trust. The following sentence could then
be removed:

"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database,
the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."

I suggest removing "further" from the following sentence:

"No further ownership claims will be made by IANA, the IETF Trust,
or ISOC on the database."

In Section 7:

"The IANA will see that the role of TZ Coordinator is filled, based on
the procedures described above."

According to Section 4, it is the IESG that does that.

There is a MoU between IANA and the IETF for IETF protocols. There
has been various interpretations of that MoU. An alternative to
avoid non-technical concerns is to place the distribution of the
database under the RFC Editor and explore having the material with a
status similar to the Independent Submission Stream. I am not
suggesting a license change. The following text is an adaption from RFC 4846:

To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is
protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an
irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual
property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy,
publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.

The Contributor, each named co-Contributor, and the organizations
represented above irrevocably and in perpetuity grant the rights
listed below to the Internet Community:

A. to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the
TZ database into languages other than English,

B to prepare derivative works (other than translations)
that are based on or incorporate all or part of the
TZ Contribution, or comment upon it. The license to such
derivative works shall not grant the IETF Trust, the IETF,
or other party preparing a derivative work any more rights
than the license to the original TZ Contribution, and

C. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names
that are included in the TZ Contribution solely in
connection with the reproduction, distribution, or
publication of the TZ Contribution and derivative
works.

Post by Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain.
There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the
licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

[Stephen Colebourne]

I support the move of the TZ DB to an organisation as a new home. My
preference would be CLDR, as I think that the data is entirely within
the cultural remit there. However, since I'm not putting in effort
myself to make that happen, I will support the IETF home.
Stephen
Co-spec lead, JSR-310

On 21 October 2010 14:11, Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]

? ? ? ?http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00
Comments on how the draft can be improved are welcome. Also welcome: feedback on whether the proposed approach meets the needs of folks on the time zone mailing list--the proposed approach can't and won't go forward without support from the time zone community.
The document includes electronic mail addresses for Eliot and Paul; general comments can also be sent to the time zone mailing list.
? ? ? ?--ado