mktime()

[Jeff Johnston]

IANAL, but the database closing and newlib's mktm_r code have no 
relation at present other than the author.  The issue appears to be over 
use of some published historical data.

 From 
http://www.thedailyparker.com/PermaLink,guid,c5f28bae-4b9c-41ea-b7b7-8891ad63c938.aspx 
it states that:

 > From the complaint:
> Defendant OlsonÂ’s unauthorized reproduction of the Works have been published at
> ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/tzarchive.qz, where the references to historic international time zone
> data is replete with references to the fact thatthe source for this information is, indeed, the ACS Atlas.

There is no historical data being used in newlib's mktm_r.  The code was 
imported/modified into newlib long ago in 2002.

Note that someone cannot own mktime - it is part of a standard.  You are 
free to implement a library based on the documentation in the standard. 
  Someone can patent an algorithm that might be useful in implementing 
mktime.  If newlib happens to use said algorithm after it is patented, 
even by accident, there could then be legal ramifications.

I hope that resolves your concerns.

-- Jeff J.

On 10/14/2011 11:58 AM, Steven Abner wrote:
>
> Hi, a separate issue that might affect Newlib.
> You may already even know about this. I'm not sure you can use your mktm_r.c file. It mentions you got from Olson. The servers have been shut down due to legal copyright issues. I believe the code is okay though, but I am not a legal wiz.
> I also wish Redhat, if they hadn't already, would get into the fight for database rights if not too late. People should be allowed to publish data or code based on research! My whole Libc library might be illegal since I researched what header information is needed and what a function like mktime should do. I think mktime might be owned by POSIX?
>
> The code I provided you is free and is base on personal deductive reasoning. The test program does contain research from Olson's information, as I was trying to use real world data, use personally only. I don't think the Julian day correction is an issue other than the comment is a direct quote from POSIX about its bounds. So maybe remove that comment? or re-word?
>
> Steve