Re: Licensing policy change proposal

Excellent, thank you :D On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:23 PM Jonathan Riddell wrote: > 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 >

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

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

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

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 wrote: > You can but try :) > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 18:56, Krešimir Čohar wrote: > > > >

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

You can but try :) On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 18:56, Krešimir Čohar 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 wrote: >> >>

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

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 wrote: > > The Unsplash license looks like a FOSS license to me. > > It is a non-free licence

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

> 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

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

> I think this is a problem. Both "not characterize as FOSS", and "with restrictions". And basically the core of this. I agree :D It's a problem... That's why I got the ball rolling on this really long thread. Can a license with restrictions truly be public domain? On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:51

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

TLDR: (1) Pexels is out. They seem to be stealing stuff from other websites with licenses that tell them not to do that. (2) Unsplash is free but with restrictions. It should be fairly easy to contact the authors and ask them (their info is on the website itself) and I think that'd be a good idea.

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

On 2019-01-29, Krešimir Čohar wrote: > I wouldn't necessarily characterize the Unsplash license as FOSS, but > rather public domain with restrictions (not entirely public domain). I also I think this is a problem. Both "not characterize as FOSS", and "with restrictions". And basically the core

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

First of all, I'd like to mention that I've been snooping around the Pexels website and it turns out that they misappropriate images from Pixabay while claiming that the license for those images is CC0. The actual license for those images is the Pixabay license, which is the same as the Unsplash

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

As an author and contributor I'm giving my thumbs-down on CC0 and friends. The main crux I have is that, already, many of us have artwork (including wallpapers, glyphs, icons, designs, and many other visual assets) which are used unaccredited with extreme regularity. Legally speaking, I need to go

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

Mirko Boehm (KDE) ha scritto: Hello, On 28. Jan 2019, at 13:23, Krešimir Čohar > 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

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

Hi, sorry, but this email contains a lot of assertions that cannot stand. > On 28. Jan 2019, at 14:28, Krešimir Čohar wrote: > > >It violates the Open Source definition, especially the rule against > >discrimination against use or user. This has been a long-time yardstick for > >the KDE

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

Hello, > On 28. Jan 2019, at 13:23, Krešimir Čohar 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

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

I think they're one and the same. All intellectual property the rights to which have been waived = CC0 = public domain. There are a few European exceptions to copyright expiration, such as

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

On Sonntag, 27. Januar 2019 21:14:10 CET Mirko Boehm wrote: > > I need to point out that CC0 licenses are problematic in many jurisdictions, > as there is no simple way to dedicate a work to the public domain. The > correct way in for example France or Germany would be to use a permissive > FOSS

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

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 wrote: > I know... I agree they should have done a better job with

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

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

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

>It violates the Open Source definition, especially the rule against discrimination against use or user. This has been a long-time yardstick for the KDE community. There isn't any discrimination? As long as the operators of the website are being truthful, no one's rights have been violated without

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

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 >

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

Hi, > On 28. Jan 2019, at 13:23, Krešimir Čohar 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. There is. We cannot prove that we have explicit permission from

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

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. > 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

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 18:04, Krešimir Čohar wrote: > The licenses are: > - the Pexels license: https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/ > - the Unsplash license: https://unsplash.com/license, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsplash#License These are both non-free licences and we can not ship

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

Hello, > On 27. Jan 2019, at 19:39, Ivan Čukić wrote: > > Since all of these mostly boil down to CC0, I'll only comment on it. > >>> https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html >>> >> >> CC0 should be uncontroversial, it should be definitely allowed by our

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

On 2019-01-27, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > >> On 27 Jan 2019, at 15:04, Krešimir Čohar 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

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

On 1/27/19 11:39 AM, Ivan Čukić wrote: I'm generally leaning against licenses like these - even if authors (of code, of art, etc.) allow us to forget them, I like giving credit where credit's due. Just because the license *allows* non-attribution, that doesn't mean we have to not attribute

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

Since all of these mostly boil down to CC0, I'll only comment on it. > > https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html > > CC0 should be uncontroversial, it should be definitely allowed by our > license policy. If I'm not mistaken, none of the licenses we allow at the moment is a "public domain"-like

Re: Licensing policy change proposal

> On 27 Jan 2019, at 15:04, Krešimir Čohar 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

Licensing policy change proposal

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: