[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-community
Subject: Re: Licensing policy change proposal
From: Nicolás_Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez () gmail ! com>
Date: 2019-01-27 18:21:45
Message-ID: 5BA6458A-4E99-4375-8EEA-10A9845CEF5B () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
> On 27 Jan 2019, at 15:04, Krešimir Čohar <kcohar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This email puts forth for your consideration a proposal to change our current \
> licensing policy to accommodate three more licenses that cover the new photographic \
> selection of wallpapers in https://phabricator.kde.org/D18078.
> The licenses are:
> - the Pexels license: https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/
While I *personally* agree with this license, it will be probably considered non-free \
(because you can't resell the photo alone), in particular by Linux distributions.
> - the Unsplash license: https://unsplash.com/license, \
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsplash#License
Looks good to me. "The right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar \
or competing service" doesn't really affect us when we're using individual photos. I \
think it doesn't even concern copyright but "database rights". And everything else is \
basically CC0.
> - the Creative Commons Zero License: https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html
CC0 should be uncontroversial, it should be definitely allowed by our license policy.
IANAL etc.
--
Nicolás
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; \
charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><br><div>On 27 \
Jan 2019, at 15:04, Krešimir Čohar <<a \
href="mailto:kcohar@gmail.com">kcohar@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>This email puts \
forth for your consideration a proposal to change our current licensing policy to \
accommodate three more licenses that cover the new photographic selection of \
wallpapers in <a href="https://phabricator.kde.org/D18078" \
target="_blank">https://phabricator.kde.org/D18078</a>.<br></div><div \
dir="ltr"><br></div><div>The licenses are:</div><div>- the Pexels license: <a \
href="https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/" \
target="_blank">https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/</a></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>While \
I *personally* agree with this license, it will be probably considered non-free \
(because you can't resell the photo alone), in particular by Linux \
distributions.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>- the \
Unsplash license: <a href="https://unsplash.com/license" \
target="_blank">https://unsplash.com/license</a>, <a \
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsplash#License" \
target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsplash#License</a></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Looks \
good to me. "T<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">he right to \
compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service" doesn't \
really affect us when we're using individual photos. I think it doesn't even concern \
copyright but "database rights". And everything else is basically \
CC0.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, \
0);"><br></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>- the Creative \
Commons Zero License: <a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html" \
target="_blank">https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.htm</a>l</div></div> \
</blockquote><br></div><div>CC0 should be uncontroversial, it should be definitely \
allowed by our license policy.</div><div><br></div><div>IANAL \
etc.</div><div><br></div><div>-- </div><div>Nicolás</div></body></html>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic