wlbragg wrote in Thu May 12, 2016 10:06 pm:I'm not so sure FG has any obligation to provide raw v0 "data", it's not code.
It does not matter if it's code or data, as long as it's the source. To quote, The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. E.g. XML files can also be classified as data, yet they are still considered part of the source.
wlbragg wrote in Thu May 12, 2016 10:06 pm:Not a lawyer here but the "preferred form of the work" for all our scenery to me means v0 from the "original" source, NLCD from the "original" source.
Per sections 2 and 3, if the source is modified and then distributed, then the modified source must be made available. "Preferred form of work" doesn't mean preferred source of data, but preferred file structure for editing it.
wlbragg wrote in Thu May 12, 2016 10:06 pm:There is also the spirit of the GPL we're talking about here. I have no clue how one would interpret or argue that.
The GPL is a license/contract. The "spirit" that it has isn't too relevant, especially when we are talking about legalities.
@statto, see above.