Hi,
With version 6 of the elementary OS wallpapers for Pantheon, they include some new wallpapers that are no longer under the "old" CC0 License for conntent from unsplash.com, but now available under the "Unsplash License", which is not listed as an acceptable / good content license in the Fedora licensing Wiki [1].
The new Unsplash license text [2] seems to be very permissive (included below for quick reference) but I still wanted to check in here if it's okay, and if it could be added to the list of acceptable licenses for content in Fedora, with a documented "Unsplash" short identifier for RPM License tags maybe?
-- begin license text Unsplash grants you an irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photos from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash. This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service. -- end license text
Thanks, Fabio
[0]: https://github.com/elementary/wallpapers/blob/deb-packaging/debian/copyright [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Content_Licenses [2]: https://unsplash.com/license
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:41:16PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
-- begin license text Unsplash grants you an irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photos from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash. This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service. -- end license text
That last sentence sounds concerning - it does not affect Fedora, but is that not an unacceptable restriction for our users? IANAL though.
Best,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:13 PM Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:41:16PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
-- begin license text Unsplash grants you an irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photos from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash. This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service. -- end license text
That last sentence sounds concerning - it does not affect Fedora, but is that not an unacceptable restriction for our users? IANAL though.
Let me check with some folks on that. I'd be interested in others' opinions, too.
If it were a code license, that's an obvious field of use restriction, which means we wouldn't accept it. Historically, we've permitted non-modification content licenses. Given the relatively narrow restriction here, I'm inclined to except it, too. After all, we *use* Unsplash photos around the project all the time: in Fedora Magazine, on the Flock website, etc.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:31 PM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
Let me check with some folks on that. I'd be interested in others' opinions, too.
If it were a code license, that's an obvious field of use restriction, which means we wouldn't accept it. Historically, we've permitted non-modification content licenses. Given the relatively narrow restriction here, I'm inclined to except it, too. After all, we *use* Unsplash photos around the project all the time: in Fedora Magazine, on the Flock website, etc.
Yeah, I know that pictures from unsplash.com are used in tons of places, but this is the first case I encountered where pictures that are licensed with their new custom license terms would end up an actual package - so I figured I should ask here first ... especially given the usage restrictions (though I don't think that it would apply to our use case, but obviously IANAL).
Fabio
It's less about whether Red Hat/Fedora runs into that restriction, and more of whether someone downstream from us might. Historically, the rule for content was "must be freely redistributable" and this fails that test, because it places a specific restriction on one method of redistribution.
I defer to Red Hat and Fedora Legal though. ;)
~spot
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 4:28 PM Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:31 PM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
Let me check with some folks on that. I'd be interested in others' opinions, too.
If it were a code license, that's an obvious field of use restriction, which means we wouldn't accept it. Historically, we've permitted non-modification content licenses. Given the relatively narrow restriction here, I'm inclined to except it, too. After all, we *use* Unsplash photos around the project all the time: in Fedora Magazine, on the Flock website, etc.
Yeah, I know that pictures from unsplash.com are used in tons of places, but this is the first case I encountered where pictures that are licensed with their new custom license terms would end up an actual package - so I figured I should ask here first ... especially given the usage restrictions (though I don't think that it would apply to our use case, but obviously IANAL).
Fabio _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 05:39:11PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
It's less about whether Red Hat/Fedora runs into that restriction, and more of whether someone downstream from us might. Historically, the rule for content was "must be freely redistributable" and this fails that test, because it places a specific restriction on one method of redistribution.
Yeah, it feels kind of weird to me too, and really in line with a lot of the decidely-not-open-source new licenses that claim a particular economic advantage for one group (or more usually and specifically, company). I don't feel like it's in the _spirit_ of what this should be all about.
Also, although it says commercial use is okay, this https://unsplash.com/license also says "Photos cannot be sold without significant modification", and I'm unclear what that means. If these images would innocently find their way into a Fedora edition that ships on a product that is for sale (a laptop or a phone or an iot device), what would the repercussions be?
After consulting with Red Hat Legal, the Unsplash license has been placed on the "Bad Content Licenses" list due to the field of use restriction.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Bad_Licenses_3
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:27 PM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
After consulting with Red Hat Legal, the Unsplash license has been placed on the "Bad Content Licenses" list due to the field of use restriction.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Bad_Licenses_3
That's a bummer ... But thanks for the investigation, and for documenting it in the wiki!
Fabio
-
Ben Cotton -
Fabio Valentini -
Matthew Miller -
Michel Alexandre Salim -
Tom Callaway