[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: Licensing policy change proposal
From:       Sune Vuorela <nospam () vuorela ! dk>
Date:       2019-01-27 19:38:04
Message-ID: q2l1as$1e2d$1 () blaine ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 2019-01-27, Nicolás Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.

I think I agree taht linux distros will want to remove it.

Discriminates against field of endavour

> 
> > - 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.

I still need to fully understand what that means.

If I get 5 images from KDE that are under unsplash license, 5 images
from Gnome that are under unsplash license, can I use those in my public
image gallery ?  Depending on this, I think it might fall under the same
non-free category as the Pexels license.

But it feels that this clause should not be a license clause for the
image, but part of the ToS for unsplash API or unsplash site. I guess
someone needs to talk to either the photographers or with unsplash to
figure out what it actually means. Else, I think we should default to
"no".

> > - 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.

yeah. at least implicitly.

I don't think we are listing all the possible licenses, just the main
ones. Everything that is one-way compatible with what we request, should
be allowed as such.  


Also note that most distros won't ship these images if there isn't
clarification of the license.

/Sune


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]