So you want to ship with the controversial situation we have now? I'm not going to start a release unless we are going to get enough votes and not get mired down in further debating of this situation. Also, if there is a ruling that requires changes after I start the release then I will have wasted time.
IMO, safest plans are to pull the example, or switch to a different set of data points that is already Public Domain. What do others think? -Alex On 3/6/18, 8:42 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: >I figured I’d wait a couple of weeks. Like I said: I don’t think it >should hold up a release if we don’t get an answer immediately. > > >> On Mar 6, 2018, at 6:11 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Om, >>>> >>>> Comments inline. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/5/18, 3:09 PM, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> on >>>> behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> >>>>> 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.pu >>>>>bl >>>>> ic >>>>> >>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.p >>>>>ub >>>>> lic> >>>>> domainsherpa.com >>>>> >>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomai >>>>>ns >>>>> >>>>>herpa.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb0 >>>>>8d >>>>> >>>>>583411c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636559238029785 >>>>>55 >>>>> >>>>>6&sdata=Zu9S5xPRzulIqUlZ%2FgPEGVs0yjZNiNcPuMvB%2FfirN8E%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>%2 >>>>> Fpublic-domain-maps.html&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.c >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>om%7Cdb3e0b405fdc43cf995108d582ee4e3b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178dece >>>>>e1 >>>>> %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%2Fcommon >>>>s. >>>> >>>>wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ABlank_US_map_borders.svg&data=02%7C01%7Ca >>>>ha >>>> >>>>rui%40adobe.com%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb08d583411c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794 >>>>ae >>>> >>>>d2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636559238029785556&sdata=uquU6h9UaHwKQRsd4V6%2BH >>>>Pu >>>> MK6cvP8U5Vw7O5WRxCHI%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommo >>>>ns >>>> >>>>.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ABlank_US_map_borders.svg&data=02%7C01%7C >>>>ah >>>> >>>>arui%40adobe.com%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb08d583411c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443879 >>>>4a >>>> >>>>ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636559238029785556&sdata=uquU6h9UaHwKQRsd4V6%2B >>>>HP >>>> uMK6cvP8U5Vw7O5WRxCHI%3D&reserved=0> >> >
