When you do go to the LWG it might be good to consider Florida's Sunshine Law at the same time. It has similar considerations.
C On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Serge Wroclawski <[email protected]> wrote: > Carl, > > Thanks for this great insight via this case.Reading through the pdf, > and not being a lawyer, a few things stand out at me. > > Firstly, there's no definition by the court of what public means in > this case. Public data might mean that the data is available to access > but not to use, or that it's copyrighted but made available. > > Secondly, while we could argue that this data should be made available > under certain terms, it's really up to the city to do. While "It > should be available under these terms" is a good defense if we decide > to use it w/o the city's terms, we still need the city to say the data > is available under certain terms. > > I think this is something the LWG will need to decide. Alternatively, > it would be best if the city simply clarified its position. > > Putting this in context, in relation to NYC, I got 6 different answers > about license for data from 4 different people, all while the data > should have been made under a very liberal license (essentially public > domain). > > - Serge > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Carl Anderson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think that California's Public Records Act may have some bearing, > limiting > > the restrictions that can be placed on the data by Marin County. > > That Public Records Act seems to indicate that the GIS data is Public > Data. > > > > Sierra Club vs. Orange County > > http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S194708.PDF > > > > > http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270 > > > > > > C. > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Dan S <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Serge, > >> > >> It reads to me as if the "must" is a condition on the use of the name > >> "MarinMap", not a condition on the use of the data. > >> > >> Best > >> Dan > >> > >> > >> 2014-10-31 11:08 GMT+00:00 Serge Wroclawski <[email protected]>: > >> > The minute you use the word "MUST", it's not a request, it's a demand. > >> > If the data was public domain, there would be no restrictions. > >> > > >> > Also, no where on the page does it use the word "Public domain", nor > >> > in any of the data I downloaded, does it have a license listed. > >> > > >> > Therefore it falls back to plain old copyright. > >> > > >> > - Serge > >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> 2014-10-31 11:54 GMT+01:00 Serge Wroclawski <[email protected]>: > >> >>> > >> >>> So let me explain why it's contradictory. Public domain is a term of > >> >>> art. If something is public domain, you can place *no* restrictions > on > >> >>> it. You can't say that there's a requirement for attribution. You > can > >> >>> even take a public domain work and claim copyright ownership over > it. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Serge, by looking at their reply I'm not sure it contains any > >> >> restrictions: > >> >> > >> >>> "You may download public domain data from the MarinMap GIS data > >> >>> download > >> >>> site. > >> >>> > >> >>> You do not need a license to use public domain data. > >> >>> > >> >>> You may acknowledge “MarinMap” as the original source, but you MUST > >> >>> state > >> >>> that MarinMap has no responsibility or warranty regarding data after > >> >>> they > >> >>> have entered the public domain. > >> >>> > >> >>> You may use the legalese from the disclaimer web page to facilitate > >> >>> writing a disclaimer. > >> >>> > >> >>> URL of the disclaimer page: > >> >>> http://www.marinmap.org/dnn/Pages/LegalNoticeDisclaimer.aspx"; > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> They say you might (even though you don't have to) attribute them, > but > >> >> if > >> >> you attribute you must make clear that there is no implied warranty. > >> >> > >> >> On the linked page they also state: "Most map data, especially > parcels, > >> >> are > >> >> not survey precise." > >> >> this is a hint that the quality might not be as good as what we > >> >> typically > >> >> have in OSM (at least in areas which haven't suffered from bad > imports) > >> >> > >> >> cheers, > >> >> Martin > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Imports mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Imports mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
