[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-community
Subject: Re: Licensing policy change proposal
From: "Mirko Boehm (KDE)" <mirko () kde ! org>
Date: 2019-01-28 22:38:33
Message-ID: 2122D924-AF87-4D18-B022-8FFBEF35E26F () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]
Hello,
> On 28. Jan 2019, at 13:23, Krešimir Čohar <kcohar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think there are any problems with using public domain images, and even if \
> there were I'd rather view them as challenges to overcome than obstacles to avoid.
This is not necessarily a question of what we think. This is a question of what we as \
a community can and should distribute. For that, we need at least explicit permission \
from the author, as in a FOSS license. There has been a very long debate on the use \
of public domain works in FOSS, and the summary AFAIK is "it is complicated" and "it \
depends on the jurisdiction". A great summary can be found here: \
https://opensource.org/node/878: <https://opensource.org/node/878:> "an open source \
user or developer cannot safely include public domain source code in a project."
>
> > These are both non-free licences and we can not ship files which can
> only be copied with their restrictions.
>
> Why not? As far as Unsplash goes, their only restriction is not to start 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.
Because we are a free software community.
I think we need to untangle the discussion:
The Unsplash license looks like a FOSS license to me.
The Pexel license is clearly not a free software license as it comes with other \
restrictions. The CC0 and other public domain licenses bring in complexity without a \
clear benefit.
Cheers,
Mirko.
--
Mirko Boehm | mirko@kde.org | KDE e.V.
FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm
[Attachment #3 (unknown)]
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; \
charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; \
line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div \
class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 28. Jan 2019, at \
13:23, Krešimir Čohar <<a href="mailto:kcohar@gmail.com" \
class="">kcohar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br \
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, \
0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: \
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: \
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; \
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline \
!important;" class="">I don't think there are any problems with using public domain \
images, and even if there were I'd rather view them as challenges to overcome than \
obstacles to avoid.</span></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>This is not \
necessarily a question of what we think. This is a question of what we as a community \
can and should distribute. For that, we need at least explicit permission from the \
author, as in a FOSS license. There has been a very long debate on the use of public \
domain works in FOSS, and the summary AFAIK is "it is complicated" and "it depends on \
the jurisdiction". A great summary can be found here: <a \
href="https://opensource.org/node/878:" \
class="">https://opensource.org/node/878:</a> "an open source user or developer \
cannot safely include public domain source code in a project."<span \
class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></div><div><div \
class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" \
class=""></blockquote></div></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div \
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; \
font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: \
normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: \
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" \
class=""><br class=""></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: \
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; \
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; \
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; \
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class="">> These are both \
non-free licences and we can not ship files which can<br class="">only be copied with \
their restrictions.<br style="color: rgb(80, 0, 80);" class=""></div><div \
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; \
font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: \
normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: \
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" \
class=""><br class=""></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: \
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; \
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; \
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; \
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class="">Why not? As far as \
Unsplash goes, their only restriction is not to start 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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Because we are a free software \
community.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I think we need to untangle the \
discussion:</div><div><br class=""></div><div><ul class="MailOutline"><li \
class="">The Unsplash license looks like a FOSS license to me.</li><li class="">The \
Pexel license is clearly not a free software license as it comes with other \
restrictions.</li><li class="">The CC0 and other public domain licenses bring in \
complexity without a clear benefit.</li></ul><div class=""><br class=""></div><div \
class="">Cheers,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div \
class="">Mirko.</div></div><div class=""> <div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: \
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div \
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; \
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; \
letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; \
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; \
text-decoration: none;">-- </div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: \
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; \
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: \
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: \
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Mirko Boehm | <a \
href="mailto:mirko@kde.org" class="">mirko@kde.org</a> | KDE e.V.<br \
class="">FSFE Team Germany<br class="">Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer<br \
class="">Request a meeting: <a href="https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm" \
class="">https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm</a></div></div> </div>
<br class=""></div></body></html>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic