Hello, > On 28. Jan 2019, at 13:23, Krešimir Čohar <kco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think there are any problems with using public domain images, and > even if there were I'd rather view them as challenges to overcome than > obstacles to avoid.
This is not necessarily a question of what we think. This is a question of what we as a community can and should distribute. For that, we need at least explicit permission from the author, as in a FOSS license. There has been a very long debate on the use of public domain works in FOSS, and the summary AFAIK is “it is complicated” and “it depends on the jurisdiction”. A great summary can be found here: https://opensource.org/node/878: <https://opensource.org/node/878:> "an open source user or developer cannot safely include public domain source code in a project." > > > These are both non-free licences and we can not ship files which can > only be copied with their restrictions. > > 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. Because we are a free software community. I think we need to untangle the discussion: The Unsplash license looks like a FOSS license to me. The Pexel license is clearly not a free software license as it comes with other restrictions. The CC0 and other public domain licenses bring in complexity without a clear benefit. Cheers, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm
