[Board] FW: [OSGeo-Discuss] The amicus curiae brief in the Orange County, California public records / geo data court case

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Board,
this is interesting issues. In general I support to clarify the
technical aspect of this legal issue (+1). It would focus on stating
that geographic data (like the parcel data in question) is not
software, which is sort of straight forward.

But I can also see another dimension around licensing software. By
supporting the court decision that (GIS) data actually really *is*
data and not software we implicitly suggest that software in general
implies licensing fees - which contradicts our very own mission.

Maybe this is too fine grained an interpretation for lawyers (haha)
but whatever we do I would like to include a passage that clarifies this.

Best regards,
Arnulf

On 16.12.2011 22:11, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I believe this would fall under our "letter of support" policy.
> 
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Protocol_for_requesting_letter_of_support
>
>  I think it would be good to support the submission.  I do not feel
> it puts our 501(c)3 status at risk.  This is not political.  It is
> about technical clarification of a point of existing law.
> 
> Best regards, Frank
> 
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com>
> wrote:
>> Yup, I'm on it -- I've pinged Mr. Joffe for more info.
>> 
>> _mpg
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Tim Schaub
>> [mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:34
>> AM To: mpg at flaxen.com Cc: board at lists.osgeo.org; Dan Putler 
>> Subject: Re: [Board] FW: [OSGeo-Discuss] The amicus curiae brief
>> in the Orange County, California public records / geo data court
>> case
>> 
>> I'd be willing to vote on attaching our name to a brief if we are
>> given more detail on the cases.  Michael, if you're able to dig
>> and summarize, that would be helpful.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Michael P. Gerlek
>> <mpg at flaxen.com> wrote:
>>> Fellow Boardsters, our help is requested.
>>> 
>>> I know nothing about the case myself and we'd need to do our
>>> homework first, but from this short blurb it seems like
>>> something we could/should support.
>>> 
>>> I'd be willing to do the homework, if the board thinks this a
>>> worthy cause.
>>> 
>>> _mpg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>> discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
>>> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dan
>>> Putler Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:08 AM To:
>>> discuss at lists.osgeo.org Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] The amicus
>>> curiae brief in the Orange County, California public records /
>>> geo data court case
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I've been in contact with Bruce Joffe who has been working on
>>> an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief associated with
>>> two court decisions that have gone in completely opposite
>>> directions in California, one involving Santa Clara County and
>>> the other involving Orange County. The legal point is the same
>>> in both cases, is GIS data (parcel data in particular) data or
>>> is it software? If it is data, then it is covered under the
>>> California Public Records Act, requiring that it be released to
>>> the public for reproduction costs, if it is software, it isn't
>>> covered, and is subject to licensing fees. The judge in the
>>> Santa Clara County case (correctly) determined it was data,
>>> while the judge in the Orange County case (incorrectly)
>>> determined it was software. The case is now heading to the
>>> California Supreme Court, and Bruce Joffe is rounding up
>>> potential individuals and organizations to sign on to the
>>> amicus curiae brief. More details about the situation was
>>> posted on the Directions Magazine daily newsletter on
>>> Wednesday. Here is the link to the article: 
>>> http://www.directionsmag.com/articles/sierra-club-vs-orange-county-pra
>>>
>>> 
- -lawsuit-update-december-10-2011/219926
>>> 
>>> My main purpose for posting this information to this list is to
>>> determine if there is some mechanism by which the Open
>>> Geospatial Foundation can be listed as one of the supporting
>>> parties in the amicus curiae brief. I don't know if there is a
>>> mechanism for approving this, but this seems like an issue that
>>> we should have a strong interest in.
>>> 
>>> Dan _______________________________________________ Discuss
>>> mailing list Discuss at lists.osgeo.org 
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Board mailing
>>> list Board at lists.osgeo.org 
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- Tim Schaub OpenGeo http://opengeo.org/ Expert service straight
>> from the developers.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Board mailing
>> list Board at lists.osgeo.org 
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> 
> 


- -- 
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk7vICgACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b0nOACfdEg4fJz443WBA0uOlaPOnL1P
lq0AmgJBSN/XDLzGz5w9DOFn4RPu2IxR
=lchA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----