It is March 6. How many days should we wait? Especially given that the current VP Legal as resigned and no replacement has been announced yet?
Thoughts? -Alex On 3/6/18, 1:03 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >The path data appears to be from the CC-BY derivative and not the public >domain original. > >I do think we need to either get clarification of replace the path data >(and possibly SVG file). I’m happy doing it myself. > >I have opened a JIRA for an official ruling on the topic. It feels like >it’s easier to just replace the data than get the ruling, but I think >this is something which *should* have a ruling. If it’s OK to reuse SVG >data in Cat B images, folks shouldn’t have to jump through hoops just >because there’s nothing clear on the topic. > >I do think it’s a relatively minor issue and should be classified as a >bug. It’s not something that should hold up a release if it can’t be >resolved before the next release. I just created an issue on the topic. > >Thanks, >Harbs > >> On Mar 6, 2018, at 7:56 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: >> >> Hi Om, >> >> Comments inline. >> >> >> On 3/5/18, 3:09 PM, "omup...@gmail.com <mailto:omup...@gmail.com> on >>behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" >> <omup...@gmail.com <mailto:omup...@gmail.com> on behalf of >>bigosma...@gmail.com <mailto:bigosma...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Om, >>>> >>>> I am not able to follow your logic. I think I've read your full email >>>> and >>>> have looked at the links. It appears you are trying to say that the >>>> data >>>> points we are using came from [1], but to me, [1] seems clearly under >>>> GNU >>>> Document and CC-BY-SA. The act of removing the state names from the >>>> data >>>> in [2] made it a derivative work, and it appears that the author of >>>>[1] >>>> says that work is not under Public Domain. >>>> >>> >>> The SVG asset itself is licensed as such. We are not using the svg >>>asset >>> anywhere. We are only using the map data which came from some other >>> source. >>> >>> Map data is not copyrightable. >>> >>> Please read the section under "The map wasn’t eligible for copyright in >>> the >>> first place" here: >>> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publ >>>ic >>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pub >>>lic> >>> domainsherpa.com >>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomains >>>herpa.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb08d >>>583411c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63655923802978555 >>>6&sdata=Zu9S5xPRzulIqUlZ%2FgPEGVs0yjZNiNcPuMvB%2FfirN8E%3D&reserved=0>%2 >>>Fpublic-domain-maps.html&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.c >>> >>>om%7Cdb3e0b405fdc43cf995108d582ee4e3b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1 >>>%7 >>> >>>C0%7C0%7C636558882380334796&sdata=lhmEgOxJKLHmRSz5JAwCLCuAI0Iqy3cn7QQu%2 >>>FI >>> aaOfQ%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> " If the components of the map are “entirely obvious” the map will not >>>be >>> copyrightable. For example, an outline map of the state of Texas, or >>>one >>> of >>> the US showing the state boundaries is *not* copyrightable. (Not >>> creative.) >>> Ditto maps that use standard cartographic conventions, like a survey >>>map. >>> (Not original.) " >>> >> Right after the passage you quote, it says this: >> >> "This is could be a tough call in certain cases >> (I mean, come on ... “entirely obvious”?) but >> that's the what the courts have said. Just keep >> in mind ... what you think is entirely obvious, >> the mapmaker might contest as creative." >> >> Let's see what other PMC members think. To me, the quote I pasted >> indicates that this is still a controversial area. The definition of >>"map >> data", AIUI, has to be tied to facts. So, GIS coordinates, or any other >> lat/lng fact that is used to create a map is not copyrightable, and any >> map image produced by the US Government is in the public domain. But I >> believe there is a gray area around the digitizing of maps. The number >>of >> points chosen which create the level of detail of a map could be argued >>to >> be a form of expression as well as the line-weights chosen for the >>lines. >> >> Also, the provenance/history of how the SVG file you chose became public >> domain is murky. I was unable to determine where the data points came >> from. >> >> To me, that's one reason why folks on wikimedia are claiming copyright >>and >> different licensing on their maps that are essentially digitized from >> public domain US Government maps. The fact that the data points for the >> states are different in different SVG files also leads me to believe the >> data points are not facts. I think the safest and least controversial >> option is for us to use a map that is in the public domain already. >>This >> map [1] seems to have a much simpler public domain provenance. Then I >> think there is less surface for nitpickers to attack. >> >> If other PMC members want to go with the current data you have in the >> files then I'll defer to them (and you). >> >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> [1] >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons. >>wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ABlank_US_map_borders.svg&data=02%7C01%7Caha >>rui%40adobe.com%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb08d583411c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794ae >>d2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636559238029785556&sdata=uquU6h9UaHwKQRsd4V6%2BHPu >>MK6cvP8U5Vw7O5WRxCHI%3D&reserved=0 >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons >>.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ABlank_US_map_borders.svg&data=02%7C01%7Cah >>arui%40adobe.com%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb08d583411c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794a >>ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636559238029785556&sdata=uquU6h9UaHwKQRsd4V6%2BHP >>uMK6cvP8U5Vw7O5WRxCHI%3D&reserved=0>
