Re: [OT?] Time-zone database down [was: Re: timezone buglet?]

Postgresql 9.0.4 has the timezone:

America/Blanc-Sablon

However other sources seem to spell this with an underscore instead of dash:

America/Blanc_Sablon

It appears that beside 'America/Blanc_Sablon', other multi-word timezones
are spelled with underscore. For example: 'Australia/Broken_Hill',
'Asia/Ho_chi_minh', 'America/Los_Angeles', and so on.

Two questions:

Is this correct as is, or is it wrong in 9.0.4?

And, should I have reported this somewhere else? Bugs?

Err, three questions:

I'm a little unclear on how the tz machinery works. Can I just update the
name column in pg_timezones to fix it for now?

Thanks

-dg

--
David Gould daveg(at)sonic(dot)net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.

daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> writes:
> Postgresql 9.0.4 has the timezone:
> America/Blanc-Sablon
> However other sources seem to spell this with an underscore instead of dash:
> America/Blanc_Sablon

I don't know what "other sources" you're consulting, but "Blanc-Sablon"
is the way it appears in the Olson timezone database, and that's what
we follow. We're not going to get into the business of editorializing
on their information. If you want to fool with it locally, look into
the .../share/timezone/ directory.

regards, tom lane

On 10/05/2011 07:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> daveg<daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> writes:
>> Postgresql 9.0.4 has the timezone:
>> America/Blanc-Sablon
>> However other sources seem to spell this with an underscore instead of dash:
>> America/Blanc_Sablon
>
> I don't know what "other sources" you're consulting, but "Blanc-Sablon"
> is the way it appears in the Olson timezone database, and that's what
> we follow.

Speaking of Olson tz database, I've just stumbled across this post
and I thought it would be worthy to report it here:

http://blog.joda.org/2011/10/today-time-zone-database-was-closed.html

> We're not going to get into the business of editorializing
> on their information. If you want to fool with it locally, look into
> the .../share/timezone/ directory.
>
> regards, tom lane

Andrea Suisani wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 07:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > daveg<daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> writes:
> >> Postgresql 9.0.4 has the timezone:
> >> America/Blanc-Sablon
> >> However other sources seem to spell this with an underscore instead of dash:
> >> America/Blanc_Sablon
> >
> > I don't know what "other sources" you're consulting, but "Blanc-Sablon"
> > is the way it appears in the Olson timezone database, and that's what
> > we follow.
>
> Speaking of Olson tz database, I've just stumbled across this post
> and I thought it would be worthy to report it here:
>
> http://blog.joda.org/2011/10/today-time-zone-database-was-closed.html

I suppose there is nothing stopping them from attacking people who
distribute the database, like Postgres, Red Hat, etc.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Andrea Suisani wrote:
>> Speaking of Olson tz database, I've just stumbled across this post
>> and I thought it would be worthy to report it here:
>> http://blog.joda.org/2011/10/today-time-zone-database-was-closed.html

> I suppose there is nothing stopping them from attacking people who
> distribute the database, like Postgres, Red Hat, etc.

It seems pretty baseless to me: you can't copyright a collection of
facts. I think we should do nothing pending a court decision.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Andrea Suisani wrote:
> >> Speaking of Olson tz database, I've just stumbled across this post
> >> and I thought it would be worthy to report it here:
> >> http://blog.joda.org/2011/10/today-time-zone-database-was-closed.html
>
> > I suppose there is nothing stopping them from attacking people who
> > distribute the database, like Postgres, Red Hat, etc.
>
> It seems pretty baseless to me: you can't copyright a collection of
> facts. I think we should do nothing pending a court decision.

Agreed. I am just pointing out the possible exposure.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On 7 October 2011 21:27, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems pretty baseless to me: you can't copyright a collection of
>> facts.  I think we should do nothing pending a court decision.
>
> Agreed.  I am just pointing out the possible exposure.

The one interesting case that I can recall were this was tested was
this (lifted from Wikipedia):

In October 1984, Fred L. Worth, author of The Trivia Encyclopedia,
Super Trivia, and Super Trivia II, filed a $300 million lawsuit
against the distributors of Trivial Pursuit. He claimed that more than
a quarter of the questions in the game's Genus Edition had been taken
from his books, even to the point of reproducing typographical errors
and deliberately placed misinformation. One of the questions in
Trivial Pursuit was "What was Columbo's first name?" with the answer
"Philip". That information had been fabricated to catch anyone who
might try to violate his copyright.[5]
The inventors of Trivial Pursuit acknowledged that Worth's books were
among their sources, but argued that this was not improper and that
facts are not protected by copyright. The district court judge agreed,
ruling in favor of the Trivial Pursuit inventors. The decision was
appealed, and in September 1987 the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling.[6] Worth asked the Supreme Court
of the United States to review the case, but the Court declined,
denying certiorari in March 1988.[7]

IANAL, but this seems pretty conclusive to me...

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

On 7 October 2011 21:17, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Andrea Suisani wrote:
>>> Speaking of Olson tz database, I've just stumbled across this post
>>> and I thought it would be worthy to report it here:
>>> http://blog.joda.org/2011/10/today-time-zone-database-was-closed.html
>
>> I suppose there is nothing stopping them from attacking people who
>> distribute the database, like Postgres, Red Hat, etc.
>
> It seems pretty baseless to me: you can't copyright a collection of
> facts.  I think we should do nothing pending a court decision.

It's ironic that they're attacking those using these facts when their
business is selling fiction poorly disguised as fact.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7 October 2011 21:27, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It seems pretty baseless to me: you can't copyright a collection of
>>> facts.  I think we should do nothing pending a court decision.
>>
>> Agreed.  I am just pointing out the possible exposure.
>
> The one interesting case that I can recall were this was tested was
> this (lifted from Wikipedia):
>
> In October 1984, Fred L. Worth, author of The Trivia Encyclopedia,
> Super Trivia, and Super Trivia II, filed a $300 million lawsuit
> against the distributors of Trivial Pursuit. He claimed that more than
> a quarter of the questions in the game's Genus Edition had been taken
> from his books, even to the point of reproducing typographical errors
> and deliberately placed misinformation. One of the questions in
> Trivial Pursuit was "What was Columbo's first name?" with the answer
> "Philip". That information had been fabricated to catch anyone who
> might try to violate his copyright.[5]
> The inventors of Trivial Pursuit acknowledged that Worth's books were
> among their sources, but argued that this was not improper and that
> facts are not protected by copyright. The district court judge agreed,
> ruling in favor of the Trivial Pursuit inventors. The decision was
> appealed, and in September 1987 the United States Court of Appeals for
> the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling.[6] Worth asked the Supreme Court
> of the United States to review the case, but the Court declined,
> denying certiorari in March 1988.[7]
>
> IANAL, but this seems pretty conclusive to me...

Facts are not subject to copyright but compilations can be. However,
the arrangement and presentation of the compilation has to be
sufficient to have merit protection. For example, the SCOTUS denied
copywrite protection to phone books, which I think is entirely
relevant to this issue. (BUT INAL).

merlin

My original read of the problem determined (for me personally) that the
only way one could be in violation of copyright was if the data was
incorrect (i.e. not factual). It presented an interesting contradiction.
The only way they could sue is by agreeing that their data is faulty and
should not be trusted. :-)

The case Merlin refers to below seemed to rule that even faulty
information is not a concern.

Personally, I think the best choice is to officially state a position on
the matter and agree to remove any copyrighted material that has been
used without the permission of the copyright owner from PostgreSQL if or
when this is ever demonstrated in court. Until that time, the damage to
the community by responding to this unproven legal threat would be
unreasonable to bear.

On 10/07/2011 05:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> The one interesting case that I can recall were this was tested was
> this (lifted from Wikipedia):
>
> In October 1984, Fred L. Worth, author of The Trivia Encyclopedia,
> Super Trivia, and Super Trivia II, filed a $300 million lawsuit
> against the distributors of Trivial Pursuit. He claimed that more than
> a quarter of the questions in the game's Genus Edition had been taken
> from his books, even to the point of reproducing typographical errors
> and deliberately placed misinformation. One of the questions in
> Trivial Pursuit was "What was Columbo's first name?" with the answer
> "Philip". That information had been fabricated to catch anyone who
> might try to violate his copyright.[5]
> The inventors of Trivial Pursuit acknowledged that Worth's books were
> among their sources, but argued that this was not improper and that
> facts are not protected by copyright. The district court judge agreed,
> ruling in favor of the Trivial Pursuit inventors. The decision was
> appealed, and in September 1987 the United States Court of Appeals for
> the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling.[6] Worth asked the Supreme Court
> of the United States to review the case, but the Court declined,
> denying certiorari in March 1988.[7]
>
> IANAL, but this seems pretty conclusive to me...
> Facts are not subject to copyright but compilations can be. However,
> the arrangement and presentation of the compilation has to be
> sufficient to have merit protection. For example, the SCOTUS denied
> copywrite protection to phone books, which I think is entirely
> relevant to this issue. (BUT INAL).

--
Mark Mielke<mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> wrote:
> My original read of the problem determined (for me personally) that the only
> way one could be in violation of copyright was if the data was incorrect
> (i.e. not factual). It presented an interesting contradiction. The only way
> they could sue is by agreeing that their data is faulty and should not be
> trusted. :-)
>
> The case Merlin refers to below seemed to rule that even faulty information
> is not a concern.

specifically,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

merlin

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 7 October 2011 21:27, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> It seems pretty baseless to me: you can't copyright a collection of
>>>> facts.  I think we should do nothing pending a court decision.
>>
>> The one interesting case that I can recall were this was tested was
>> this (lifted from Wikipedia):
>>
>> In October 1984, Fred L. Worth, author of The Trivia Encyclopedia,
>> Super Trivia, and Super Trivia II, filed a $300 million lawsuit
>> against the distributors of Trivial Pursuit.
>
> Facts are not subject to copyright but compilations can be.

I know it's popular for engineers to play lawyer and I've been guilty
of it on many an occasion. But in this case I think you're all *way*
oversimplifying the situation and I don't think it's within our ken to
be able to come to any clear conclusion.

a) Both the trivial pursuit case and the Feist predate a major change
to US copyright statutes -- the DMCA. The DMCA implemented the WIPO
Copyright Treaty which specifically addressed database compilation
copyrights. I do not know how to interpret the language of the DMCA on
this and frankly I'm not sure anybody knows since I don't know if
there have been any major cases under it yet. If my guess is right the
relevant section is 17 U.S.C. §§ 103.

I'm not clear that a compilation that was made prior to the DMCA can
suddenly acquire copyrights when if it had none before though.

b) Both of these cases are US cases. Copyright law varies heavily from
country to country despite the Berne and WIPO treaties.

c) I don't think that resolving whether the Olson database would be
covered even under Feist is so crystal clear as you guys make it out
to be. *After* Feist but before the DMCA courts ruled in various cases
that phone books and even a baseball score card *did* have enough
originality to qualify for copyright.

All that said I think this is far murkier than you all seem to think.
Copyright law is one of the most complex areas of the law and this is
one of the least well defined parts of copyright law.

--
greg

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> All that said I think this is far murkier than you all seem to think.
> Copyright law is one of the most complex areas of the law and this is
> one of the least well defined parts of copyright law.
>

imposing no natural restrictions have that effect ;)

--
Jaime Casanova         www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación

Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Facts are not subject to copyright but compilations can be.

> I know it's popular for engineers to play lawyer and I've been guilty
> of it on many an occasion. But in this case I think you're all *way*
> oversimplifying the situation and I don't think it's within our ken to
> be able to come to any clear conclusion.

Well, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not volunteering to be counsel
for Messrs. Olson et al. But I can recognize a troll when I see one.
More to the point, this is an attack on a fundamental piece of open
source infrastructure, and I'm quite sure that a lot of large companies
will be stepping up to help ensure that it stays open.

I feel no need for us to do anything, until and unless there's an
adverse court ruling, which I fully expect there will not be. And
if there is, we won't be the only ones looking for an alternative
solution.

regards, tom lane

On 10/07/2011 11:02 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> All that said I think this is far murkier than you all seem to think.
> Copyright law is one of the most complex areas of the law and this is
> one of the least well defined parts of copyright law.

Hi Greg:

I don't think "we all" think this issue is clear. Quoting relevant case
law and considering what position to hold or what action to take is what
I would call due diligence. If somebody wants to hire a lawyer that
might be advisable as well.

I think "wait and see whether this is a true violation" is a perfectly
valid legal position to hold and is not pretending in any way that this
issue is "clear"...

--
Mark Mielke<mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>