Licensing policy change proposal
nospam at vuorela.dk
Sun Jan 27 19:38:04 GMT 2019
On 2019-01-27, Nicolás Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2019, at 15:04, Krešimir Čohar <kcohar at 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
>> - 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.
More information about the kde-community