royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Page linked to from license page no longer exists
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2018 17:29:44 GMT
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.lists@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 <aharui@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.lists@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 <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>>>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Om,
>>>> 
>>>> Comments inline.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/5/18, 3:09 PM, "omuppi1@gmail.com <mailto:omuppi1@gmail.com> on
>>>> behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
>>>> <omuppi1@gmail.com <mailto:omuppi1@gmail.com> on behalf of
>>>> bigosmallm@gmail.com <mailto:bigosmallm@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@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%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>
>> 
>

Mime
View raw message