text: You posted the second one anonymously also ;) It's cool. I do that all the time. I'm not meaning to be emotional about it. Its important to follow the rules and I agree that in general we shouldn't encourage the use of copyrighted information. Me and Freebeer get in these types of backs and forth's a lot. So don't read into it to much ;)
  
  None of us are copyright lawyers (that I know of) and its way to complicated of a subject to figure out here. I don't even think that the DWG (or whoever takes care of that) has it completely figured out. Considering that, I could have included a part after the link about not using it if its copyrighted. I just assumed that was a given though. But its my bad either way. 
  
  Its really important in my mind though to separate the linking to of potentially copyrighted information (if its included with the caveat that the person should check the copyright before using it. Which I totally should have included). Versus the actual use of copyrighted information. Their two different things. I usually link in good faith that the other person will double check before using it also. I don't feel like being paralyzed to link to outside sources by copyright infringement fears. 
  
  I have yet to see anyone even use the information in the link. The last edit to the trails was two years ago. If someone does end up adding something to the park, I'm perfectly willing ask them if it was from the link and if they checked the copyright or not. I'll even call the FL GIS department to see if it can be freely used if need be since it doesn't say one or another on their site from what I can find. I did that in the instance of an alley next to a church once that had an access restriction for horses. 
  
  I will say though that I've seen many people cite Google maps as a source that haven't gotten their accounts blocked. In 99% of the cases its just newbies that don't know any better and blocking them for it wouldn't be productive. So context does matter a lot. 