Skyscript Astrology Forum

handn wrote:Astrolabe deserve more respectful treatment for their contribution to the field of data collection, no matter how many errors their database may or may not have (I'm not in a position to know since I don't own their relevant software), and I'm not very impressed with what has regularly and from various quarters come across as testosterone-fuelled battling and finger-pointing, in place of mature adults reaching a sensible agreement.

Hi Handn, just to refute your point regarding the quote above: Astrolabe did not contribute anything (at least anything special) for the timezone database. They did buy it, and cheaply I think, from the guys who really did contribute something!
As company, enterprise, group of people, you name it, they didn't add value to this subject. Just money, and not very much as it seems..

To Caesar What Belongs to Caesar?

Regards,
Jo?o Ventura

handn wrote:.. and the fact is that Astrolabe put a lot of work in at the coalface.
....
(I'm not in a position to know since I don't own their relevant software)

It has already been stated that Astrolabe had nothing to do with the collection of timezone history information by former ACS (Astro Communication Services) San Diego, a company founded by Neil Michelsen.

It should be noted that it is a misunderstanding, possibly intended by Astrolabe, that this is about software and 'databases'.

It is not. It is about historical facts (when was daylight saving time in which area, when were timezone changes), and these facts were and are published in book format. Olson & co quoted data from such books, and named the books as a source for these quotes.

Such factual information is not protected by copyright, neither in the US nor in most other parts of the world.

It is worthwile to read the PDF document published yesterday by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, where it moves the court to punish Astrolabe and its lawyer for starting a frivolous and unfunded lawsuit.

The essential arguments are presented strong and clear in this document.

Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 11
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files ... oalabe.pdf

What is my personal interest in this matter, some people might ask?

Since many years, I (Alois Treindl, founder of Astrodienst) am involved in the creation of free and open source resources for correct astrological calculations. Swiss Ephemeris is a part; it has allowed and continues to allow many hundred of programmers all over the world to create rich astrology software with a very sound basis for calculation.

I am also involved in the free and open tz database project, started by Olson, the defendant in this lawsuit. My particular goal is to complete the gaps this database has in some areas for some periods of history. It currently gives correct timezone information for about 90% of charts, and it needs to be completed, by gathering more historical fact information from all available sources.

I am investing considerable resources in terms of time and funds into these projects, which serve the community, and are out there for everyone to use, freely and with no strings attached.

I think that the lawsuit by Astrolabe against two prominent figures of the open data movement was intended to create fear and confusion in the open data movement. It was intended to frighten people like me or Curtis Manwaring, who is actively working on a location and timezone history atlas based on open sources and free information.

I am glad that this attempt is to create fear and confusion is failing. The free data movement will come out stronger, once this frivolous lawsuit is settled or withdrawn.

It had saddened me that colleagues at Astrolabe, who were friends and business partners for decades, have tried such maneuvers, instead of cooperating in the process of creating an essential and complete open resource for the astrological community.

I had offered in the past to purchase all rights on the ACS atlas data collection, with the declared and clear intention to turn this data collection into a free and public resource. My offer is still standing.

AloisT wrote:I had offered in the past to purchase all rights on the ACS atlas data collection, with the declared and clear intention to turn this data collection into a free and public resource. My offer is still standing.

This is the best route to go IMO. Time change history is public by its very nature and the advantage of open source allows collaboration with a large number of people in the world which can greatly increase accuracy. It is certainly better than having a small isolated group of researchers doing private work where the original sources for information are not easily accessible or verifiable (being secreted away through copyright and lack of documentation). More needs to be done to extend the Olson database past the 1970 date horizon and your proposal is the best hope for this that I see at the current time.

The case against the Olson TZ Database is probably dead unless Astrolabe can explain why they have not served the defendants. The Court's "notice of potential dismissal" was filed this morning, since proof of service has not been filed, nor any other explanation.

PDF of the document: http://archive.org/download/gov.uscourt ... 42.4.0.pdf

My guess is that this legal stunt by Astrolabe was just to cause as much trouble as possible without crossing the line legally because they know there is no case. It looks like it was an attempt to stifle competition by trying to limit our commercial freedom to create.

I got this from John Hawkinson of the Olson TZ community:

A few minutes ago (1553 US/Eastern), Astrolabe filed a "Plaintiff's
Notice of voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice & Withosut [sic] Cost."

The document should be available at
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... ad.139342/
in a few minutes.

Until then, you can find a copy at my mirror, though the document
itself is uninteresting:

http://web.mit.edu/jhawk/tmp/tz/

The operative text:

" PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
" WITH PREJUDICE & WITHOSUT COST
"
" Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), please take
" notice that Plaintiff ASTROLABE, INC., pursuant to Federal Rule of
" Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), hereby voluntarily dismisses all claims in
" this action with prejudice, and without costs, as to Defendants ARTHUR
" DAVID OLSEN and PAUL EGGERT.
"
" In connection with this NOTICE, the Plaintiff states that the
" Defendants have neither answered Plaintiff's Complaint, nor filed a
" motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, this matter may be
" dismissed with prejudice and without an Order of the Court.

Good to know that boondoggle is over with.

What does "with prejudice" mean in this context?

Hi Mithra6,

I think that means that they won't bring suit again.

GR wrote:Hi Mithra6,

I think that means that they won't bring suit again.

It means that the issue cannot be brought back up in court at a later date against Olson and Eggert because Astrolabe failed to follow proper procedure in the matter. Astrolabe apparently knew they had no case because they didn't serve the defendants and as Alois said, it was apparently a move designed to create fear in the open data community. It was designed to create the "appearance of wrong doing" without evidence for as long as possible to try to generate sympathy for their position politically without crossing the line legally.

EFF makes a statement about the Astrolabe case here:

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff- ... e-database

Quote from EFF:

In a statement, Astrolabe said, "Astrolabe's lawsuit against Mr. Olson and Mr. Eggert was based on a flawed understanding of the law. We now recognize that historical facts are no one's property and, accordingly, are withdrawing our Complaint. We deeply regret the disruption that our lawsuit caused for the volunteers who maintain the TZ database, and for Internet users."