I think this is the same that happens with MDL examples. There's two
options:

1) fix the problem. In this case seems easy since is only one file

2) remove the example to Royale Extras. If there's no time, this is the
best option

I'm with Alex that is better to solve the problem before start a release
process

My 2ctns...

C.


2018-03-06 18:29 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:

> 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" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> 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 <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> 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" <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.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%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%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%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> ce
> >>>>>e1
> >>>>> %7
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>C0%7C0%7C636558882380334796&sdata=lhmEgOxJKLHmRSz5JAwCLCuAI0Iqy3
> cn7QQu
> >>>>>%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%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb08d58341
> 1c9b%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%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb08d58341
> 1c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443879
> >>>>4a
> >>>>
> >>>>ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636559238029785556&sdata=
> uquU6h9UaHwKQRsd4V6%2B
> >>>>HP
> >>>> uMK6cvP8U5Vw7O5WRxCHI%3D&reserved=0>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Reply via email to