[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-community
Subject: Re: Licensing policy change proposal
From: Krešimir Čohar <kcohar () gmail ! com>
Date: 2019-01-28 13:30:52
Message-ID: CABnAy3ceuzqHNfTJAmksNjz0WKKbKUz_riNkUZYKeVq3s0vW=A () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
I know... I agree they should have done a better job with the wording, but
I think we can get them to be more specific about it. And no, we wouldn't
be violating their license in any circumstance so I think they'd be OK with
granting CC-0 in these select cases.
P.S. Debian just ditches all our wallpapers and our sddm theme and puts in
its own. And thanks for the suggestion - I agree that we should bring in
someone that speaks legalese on this, they'll know how to proceed.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:25 PM Adriaan de Groot <groot@kde.org> wrote:
> On Monday, 28 January 2019 13:23:36 CET Kre=C5=A1imir =C4=8Cohar wrote:
> > Why not? As far as Unsplash goes, their only restriction is not to star=
t
> a
> > competing service, which is not even remotely what we are trying to do.
> > Surely that is a reasonable and acceptable restriction. It's not unlike
> the
> > copyleft restrictions ("freedoms") of the GPL.
>
> Here's the thing: we ship Free Software. More-or-less-equivalently, we
> ship
> things licensed under an Open Source license. And *that* in turn basicall=
y
> means "is it OSI listed".
>
> That's a short-and-bureaucratic kind of answer, which I don't particularl=
y
> like.
>
> A related thing: if we ship something, and *downstream* doesn't like it,
> then
> either they patch it out, or they don't ship our stuff. It's important to
> ask
> downstreams specifically what they think, when we're re-shipping somethin=
g
> from
> upstream under an unexpected license. Debian is one of the most particula=
r
> of
> our downstreams, so we'd definitely want to check with them.
>
> A related thing: FOSDEM is this weekend, when we have the KDE licensing
> people, Debian, and a room full of lawyers all in one place (-ish). That'=
s
> probably a good moment to inquire.
>
> [ade]
>
> PS. The license seems a bit inconsistent to me: first it grants a very
> broad
> license and then carves out a specific exception (field of endeavour). It
> would
> be more tidy if it started with "EXCEPT AS LISTED BELOW (field of
> endeavour),
> Unsplash grants you ..". It may be feasible to get a specific (i.e. CC-0)
> license applied by Unsplash to these specific (how many, six?) photos,
> since
> it's unlikely that you can start a competing service with just six photos=
.
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">I know... I agree they should have done a better job with the wording, \
but I think we can get them to be more specific about it. And no, we wouldn't be \
violating their license in any circumstance so I think they'd be OK with granting \
CC-0 in these select cases.<div><br></div><div>P.S. Debian just ditches all our \
wallpapers and our sddm theme and puts in its own. And thanks for the suggestion - I \
agree that we should bring in someone that speaks legalese on this, they'll know \
how to proceed.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:25 PM Adriaan de Groot <<a \
href="mailto:groot@kde.org">groot@kde.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Monday, 28 January 2019 13:23:36 CET Krešimir \
Čohar wrote:<br> > Why not? As far as Unsplash goes, their only restriction is \
not to start a<br> > competing service, which is not even remotely what we are \
trying to do.<br> > Surely that is a reasonable and acceptable restriction. \
It's not unlike the<br> > copyleft restrictions ("freedoms") of the \
GPL.<br> <br>
Here's the thing: we ship Free Software. More-or-less-equivalently, we ship <br>
things licensed under an Open Source license. And *that* in turn basically <br>
means "is it OSI listed".<br>
<br>
That's a short-and-bureaucratic kind of answer, which I don't particularly \
<br> like.<br>
<br>
A related thing: if we ship something, and *downstream* doesn't like it, then \
<br> either they patch it out, or they don't ship our stuff. It's important \
to ask <br> downstreams specifically what they think, when we're re-shipping \
something from <br> upstream under an unexpected license. Debian is one of the most \
particular of <br> our downstreams, so we'd definitely want to check with \
them.<br> <br>
A related thing: FOSDEM is this weekend, when we have the KDE licensing <br>
people, Debian, and a room full of lawyers all in one place (-ish). That's <br>
probably a good moment to inquire.<br>
<br>
[ade]<br>
<br>
PS. The license seems a bit inconsistent to me: first it grants a very broad <br>
license and then carves out a specific exception (field of endeavour). It would <br>
be more tidy if it started with "EXCEPT AS LISTED BELOW (field of endeavour), \
<br> Unsplash grants you ..". It may be feasible to get a specific (i.e. CC-0) \
<br> license applied by Unsplash to these specific (how many, six?) photos, since \
<br> it's unlikely that you can start a competing service with just six \
photos.</blockquote></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic