The source is [1]. The relevant part of the "Copyright Policy" of the state government website says: "The compiled information presented on this WWW site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. However, use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." It's not written in the terms we're used to but no claim to a copyright is made at all, and there is an unqualified and absolute statement that the contents of the website "may be copied". It's compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0 and explicitly requests rather than requires attribution. More than good enough for me. Given that it's a dry paragraph of entirely factual information about the work of a public agency, if anyone is that concerned about it I would suggest it is simply rewritten. ninety:one22:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence before that is "However, the State of Rhode Island makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of copyright claims or other restrictions or limitations on fair use or display." That's the part that concerns me. Apocheir (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Apocheir and Ninetyone: It grants the rights to re-distribute and to copy the website's content, but it does not explicitly grant rights to modify the content. The ability to copy something and redistribute it would be more than enough for compatibility with CC-BY-ND, but it's not enough for me to say that this is compatible with CC-BY-SA. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revision deletion is an admin decision and a judgement call in this case. If you're not sure if it's the correct thing to do, don't do it. I don't think I would do it. — Diannaa (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 09:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article. Content not found here, this is a permanent dead link; according to our page on the copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States, California government works are normally in the public domain, so this would only matter for attribution reasons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. MER-C 10:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirected, no independent sources. Copyright statement is far from clear, as discussed above, but I don't see that revision deletion is justified; there's no help here. Diannaa, MER-C, Wizardman, any thoughts on this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)