I just switched to the data in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_US_map_borders.svg.
I will start an RC tomorrow if there are no further issues. -Alex On 3/6/18, 9:29 AM, "Alex Harui" <[email protected]> wrote: >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.p >>>>>>u >>>>>>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%2Fdoma >>>>>>i >>>>>>ns >>>>>> >>>>>>herpa.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb >>>>>>0 >>>>>>8d >>>>>> >>>>>>583411c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63655923802978 >>>>>>5 >>>>>>55 >>>>>> >>>>>>6&sdata=Zu9S5xPRzulIqUlZ%2FgPEGVs0yjZNiNcPuMvB%2FfirN8E%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>%2 >>>>>> Fpublic-domain-maps.html&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.c >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>om%7Cdb3e0b405fdc43cf995108d582ee4e3b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178dec >>>>>>e >>>>>>e1 >>>>>> %7 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>C0%7C0%7C636558882380334796&sdata=lhmEgOxJKLHmRSz5JAwCLCuAI0Iqy3cn7QQ >>>>>>u >>>>>>%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%2Fcommo >>>>>n >>>>>s. >>>>> >>>>>wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ABlank_US_map_borders.svg&data=02%7C01%7C >>>>>a >>>>>ha >>>>> >>>>>rui%40adobe.com%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb08d583411c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443879 >>>>>4 >>>>>ae >>>>> >>>>>d2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636559238029785556&sdata=uquU6h9UaHwKQRsd4V6%2B >>>>>H >>>>>Pu >>>>> MK6cvP8U5Vw7O5WRxCHI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcomm >>>>>o >>>>>ns >>>>> >>>>>.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ABlank_US_map_borders.svg&data=02%7C01%7 >>>>>C >>>>>ah >>>>> >>>>>arui%40adobe.com%7Caa8f41c3bb32452833fb08d583411c9b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344387 >>>>>9 >>>>>4a >>>>> >>>>>ed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636559238029785556&sdata=uquU6h9UaHwKQRsd4V6%2 >>>>>B >>>>>HP >>>>> uMK6cvP8U5Vw7O5WRxCHI%3D&reserved=0> >>> >> >
