That last email (the legalese thing) was in response to Adriaan's email :D Sorry Adriaan I've never posted to a mailing list before I still don't know how to reply properly hahaha
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:30 PM Krešimir Čohar <[email protected]> wrote: > I know... I agree they should have done a better job with the wording, but > I think we can get them to be more specific about it. And no, we wouldn't > be violating their license in any circumstance so I think they'd be OK with > granting CC-0 in these select cases. > > P.S. Debian just ditches all our wallpapers and our sddm theme and puts in > its own. And thanks for the suggestion - I agree that we should bring in > someone that speaks legalese on this, they'll know how to proceed. > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:25 PM Adriaan de Groot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > >
