Licensing policy change proposal

[Jonathan Riddell]

Well others have queried and objected so I guess it's not final.  But
if someone declares their work to be in the pubic domain then a) that
satisfies our needs and the needs of all our distributors and b) no
court in the world is going to uphold a complaint for any use when it
has been explicitly said it's unrestricted.

Jonathan

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 19:43, Krešimir Čohar <kcohar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence haha
> So to sum up though, is CC0 acceptable?
> if we confirm that the images we're going to use are CC0 can we use them?
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:22 PM Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org> wrote:
>>
>> You can but try :)
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 18:56, Krešimir Čohar <kcohar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Should we ask Unsplash and/or the photographers if they'd be willing to release the photographs we selected (seeing as there aren't that many) as CC0?
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:25 AM Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The Unsplash license looks like a FOSS license to me.
>> >>
>> >> It is a non-free licence which we can not use. 'This license does not
>> >> include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a
>> >> similar or competing service.'
>> >>
>> >> > The CC0 and other public domain licenses bring in complexity without a clear benefit.
>> >>
>> >> CC0 is a declaration not a licence and we really can't stop including
>> >> works in the public domain, as others have said it includes many
>> >> elements of what we ship including other works people have declared as
>> >> public domain, UI elements and APIs and indeed the complete works of
>> >> Shakespeare if we so wished.
>> >>
>> >> Jonathan