On Monday, 28 January 2019 13:23:36 CET Krešimir Čohar wrote:
> Why not? As far as Unsplash goes, their only restriction is not to start a
> competing service, which is not even remotely what we are trying to do.
> Surely that is a reasonable and acceptable restriction. It's not unlike the
> copyleft restrictions ("freedoms") of the GPL.Here's the thing: we ship Free Software. More-or-less-equivalently, we ship things licensed under an Open Source license. And *that* in turn basically means "is it OSI listed". That's a short-and-bureaucratic kind of answer, which I don't particularly like. A related thing: if we ship something, and *downstream* doesn't like it, then either they patch it out, or they don't ship our stuff. It's important to ask downstreams specifically what they think, when we're re-shipping something from upstream under an unexpected license. Debian is one of the most particular of our downstreams, so we'd definitely want to check with them. A related thing: FOSDEM is this weekend, when we have the KDE licensing people, Debian, and a room full of lawyers all in one place (-ish). That's probably a good moment to inquire. [ade] PS. The license seems a bit inconsistent to me: first it grants a very broad license and then carves out a specific exception (field of endeavour). It would be more tidy if it started with "EXCEPT AS LISTED BELOW (field of endeavour), Unsplash grants you ..". It may be feasible to get a specific (i.e. CC-0) license applied by Unsplash to these specific (how many, six?) photos, since it's unlikely that you can start a competing service with just six photos.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
