Re: Replacing the animal photos in the ‘erase’ activities

[Karl Ove Hufthammer]

Timothée Giet skreiv 25.02.2022 00:07:
> I agree with most criterias of selection you gave, though I would add
> one more requirement: the images should still look okay (after being
> cropped) when displayed on a phone in vertical layout (so the image
> should be cropped in a way that the horizontal center of the image
> contains a meaningful part of it, like the head of the animal for example).

Is it possible to set the horizontal alignment of the image? Then we can 
define a value for each image which defines the horizontal position (in 
%) of the most important part of the image. If the head of the animal is 
at 75% (i.e., ¾ of the distance from left to right), this value will be 
.75. When the aspect ratio is < 16:9, cropping will start from the left 
of the image and continue so that the 75% part of the image is always 
visible.

I don’t see native support for this in QML, but there is a 
‘horizontalAlignment’ property, with values Image.AlignLeft, 
Image.AlignRight and Image.AlignHCenter. This might be enough (the 
interesting part is usually either in the centre, left or right of the 
image). Or perhaps it’s possible to use a hack with a manually 
positioned (outer, clipped) box to achieve a similar effect?


> One more precision about acceptable licenses: for CC-BY-SA, only
> CC-BY-SA version 4.0 is compatible with GPLv3 license, so any image
> using earlier CC-BY-SA version should not be used... Also some images in
> your list are under the GNU Free Documentation License, which is meant
> for documentation only and is not compatible to mix directly with GPL in
> a combined work...

We can ask the authors if they are willing to relicense. After all, a 
person who chose to license their image under CC-BY-SA 2.0 probably 
didn‘t do it because they were against CC-BY-SA 4.0, but because the 
CC-BY-SA 2.0 was the current license at the time. And they might even 
accept CC-BY. And I would think that most people who use GNU Free 
Documentation License probably isn’t against (relicensing to) GPLv3(+).

So I would prefer if we first vote on the *original* list of images. If 
some highly rated images have an unacceptable license, I can try to 
contact the authors and ask about relicensing. If they don’t accept, we 
can either skip the image or, if it’s important that we have an image of 
that exact animal, try to find an alternative image with acceptable 
license. I have currently only looked at Wikimedia Commons, because the 
images are nicely categorised and easy to browse, but there are also 
many images with an appropriate license at Flickr. If we‘re looking for 
an image of a specific animal, it’s easy to search.


-- 
Karl Ove Hufthammer