unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

johnraff · 2024-09-19 07:19:34

I've started this new topic so as not to clog up @hhh's Carbon Themes thread.

tl:dr Just scroll down to the bottom of the post. I think we're probably OK.

We'd like to use two wallpapers by Pawel Czerwinski, originally on unsplash (eg https://unsplash.com/photos/background- … RcQ81KaX9g ).

Discussing the unsplash licence:

johnraff wrote:

You slightly modified the originals, right?
---
Thanks for the licence links. They're all a bit vague unfortunately. I really would like a specific licence definition like GPL-3.0+ or CC-BY-NC-3.0 but anyway I'll see if there's anything on the interwebs about Debian and Unsplash...

Here is the unsplash licence:
https://unsplash.com/license
https://help.unsplash.com/en/collection … sh-license
https://unsplash.com/terms
That all looks very free and liberal, except that there's something about not being able to sell the images. (The GPL licence explicitly permits that - in fact it doesn't allow any restrictions to be put on the use of works under it. Some of the Creative Commons licences are less permissive, and in fact can't be used in Debian packages.)

Before continuing - BunsenLabs is Debian with some configs, but as a Debian derivative we're not obliged to strictly follow the Debian licencing rules. Even so, those rules have a reason and as members of the free software community we'd like to do our best to make our packages consistent with free software principles in general and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

So I did some web searching, but the unsplash licence is not on the (quite long) dfsg Licenses list, and there seems to have been no mention of it on the debian-legal mailing list. The Wikipedia has something to say about the unsplash licence:

While it gives downloaders the right to "copy, modify, distribute and use the photos for free, including commercial purposes, without asking permission from or providing attribution to the photographer or Unsplash", the Unsplash terms of service prohibit selling unaltered copies...

Before June 2017, photos uploaded to Unsplash were made available under the Creative Commons zero license, which is a public domain equivalent license and a waiver, which irrevocably allowed individuals to freely reuse, repurpose and remix photos for their own projects.

Unfortunately the Pawel Czerwinski example above was uploaded in 2022 so is well inside the unsplash licence zone.

We do have a possible getout, though, in that @hhh has modified the two wallpaper files in question, which looks as if it removes the selling prohibition. Of course we're not planning to sell any of our stuff, but in order to pass as free software we can't put any such restrictions on our users.

It all looks a bit vague, but I thought I'd try an AI question (Perplexity) which showed that this new-fangled AI stuff might sometimes have its uses:

Is the unsplash license compatible with Debian dfsg?
Sources
https://github.com/endless-sky/endless-sky/issues/9355
https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianFreeSoftwareGuidelines
https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq
https://github.com/endless-sky/endless-sky/issues/9413
https://deprogrammaticaipsum.com/pdf/is … source.pdf
Answer
Based on the available information, the Unsplash license does not appear to be fully compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). Here's an analysis of the situation:
Unsplash License
The Unsplash license grants users a broad set of rights, including:
Irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license
Permission to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use images for free
Allows commercial use without attribution
DFSG Compatibility Issues
While the Unsplash license is permissive, there are a few potential issues regarding DFSG compatibility:
License Specificity: The DFSG requires that licenses not be specific to Debian
. The Unsplash license is a custom license, which may raise concerns.
Source Availability: The DFSG requires that source code be available
. For images, this could mean access to original, uncompressed files, which may not always be provided by Unsplash.
Derived Works: While the Unsplash license allows modifications, it's not explicitly clear if it meets all DFSG requirements for derived works
. Debian's Stance: There is no clear documentation of Debian officially accepting the Unsplash license. It is not listed on the DFSGLicenses wiki page, and searches of the debian-legal mailing list have not yielded results regarding Unsplash
Considerations for Debian Packages
For projects considering inclusion in Debian:
Caution Advised: Given the lack of explicit approval, it's advisable to be cautious about including Unsplash-licensed content in Debian packages
. Alternative Licenses: Consider using content with more clearly DFSG-compatible licenses, such as Creative Commons CC0 or CC BY-SA 4.0
. Verification Needed: For older Unsplash images that might be CC0, verification through the Internet Archive is recommended, as suggested by Creative Commons
. Debian Review Process: Ultimately, the Debian ftp masters and package maintainers would need to review and approve the use of Unsplash-licensed content on a case-by-case basis

While the Unsplash license is permissive, its compatibility with the DFSG is not definitively established. Projects aiming for inclusion in Debian should consider using more clearly DFSG-compatible licenses or seek specific approval from Debian maintainers for Unsplash-licensed content.

Anyway, it found at least one Debian package endless-sky that uses a lot of images from unsplash and whose developers have been thinking about the licensing:
https://github.com/endless-sky/endless-sky/issues/9355
https://github.com/endless-sky/endless-sky/pull/9458
https://github.com/endless-sky/endless-sky/pull/9459

You can see what they've put in debian/copyright:
https://github.com/endless-sky/endless- … /381/files

Unfortunately that might not have been quite enough to keep the Debian gatekeepers happy:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo … ug=1061241

So... what should BL do?
I think we've got two getouts here:
1) @hhh modified the files, so the sales ban in the licence might not apply.
2) We're not actually Debian anyway.

So I suggest that if we put in our debian/copyright file that the copyright belongs to Pawel Czerwinski, year 2022 and license "unsplash license" (maybe with a link to the license) we should be OK?

This all might have been obvious from the beginning but I wanted to get the issues out in the open.

brontosaurusrex · 2024-09-19 08:52:03

johnraff wrote:

So I suggest that if we put in our debian/copyright file that the copyright belongs to Pawel Czerwinski, year 2022 and license "unsplash license" (maybe with a link to the license) we should be OK?

I think that is more than ok, but if you really wanna be paranoid it would be probably wise to contact author directly and ask to resubmit his/hers work at the less specific, more widely known license you are good with (I don't know, maybe cc0 is the one ? https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/), edit: or to keep crunchbang culture alive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

hhh · 2024-09-20 01:35:01

It stinks that there's no email address for him.

johnraff · 2024-09-20 01:54:45

I think unsplash are a bit possessive about their stuff at the end of the day. Even if we were able to contact P. C. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was unable to change the licence for any of his images on unsplash.

Let's just do it the easy way. I doubt anybody cares what we do.

brontosaurusrex · 2024-09-20 07:00:26

I agree, just a note:
From my incredibly small knowledge on the 'legal matters', I did slept over most of the lectures, I do recall the that the original author can publish the work under multiple licenses, for example one can be gpl, another one can be completely commercial.

hhh · 2024-09-21 02:32:41

I altered the images (a bit, color shift and lightness), by the unsplash terms can't I release my "new" images under one of the GPLs and credit the originals?

As long as I still credit and link to Pavlov W, I think that should be OK.

johnraff · 2024-09-21 04:23:41

^Lets assume the answer is "yes".

johnraff · 2024-09-28 07:44:15

hhh wrote:

I altered the images (a bit, color shift and lightness), by the unsplash terms can't I release my "new" images under one of the GPLs and credit the originals?

Let's do that. Should we rename the images? The current names are pawel-czervinski-{bark,sage}.png
That's presumably not what they were called on the Unsplash site? In fact I couldn't see any names there.

As long as I still credit and link to Pavlov W, I think that should be OK.

Put the link where? And link to what?

Right now I've provisionally put this block in debian/copyright:

Files: bl-img-base/wallpapers/default/pawel-czervinski-*
Copyright: 2022 Pawel Czervinski
License: Unsplash
Comment:
These images are modified from originals uploaded to unsplash.com.

hhh · 2024-09-28 16:24:29

Put the link to his unsplash account in a ReadMe file. The guy is hugely popular on unsplash.

https://unsplash.com/@pawel_czerwinski

https://help.unsplash.com/en/collection … sh-license

Here's one of his abstracts, if you download it the name is pawel-czerwinski-C8o1DCKoJZY-unsplash.jpg

https://unsplash.com/photos/a-black-and … 8o1DCKoJZY

johnraff · 2024-09-29 09:46:51

^sounds good.

I'll get back up to speed on this general topic, probably tomorrow.
There has been a variety of side-issues of late, some computer-type (eg OCR), some IRL.

johnraff · 2024-09-30 07:03:13

Since we're working on the basis that you've modified the files, I'll set the license to our regular GPL.

...oh yes, for now let's ship both the sage and bark versions, but which one would you like to set as default in bunsen-configs?

And eventually, the one which isn't default will be moved from bunsen-images-base to bunsen-images.

Last edited by johnraff (2024-09-30 07:09:16)

hhh · 2024-09-30 13:17:33

Set bark, it's not a color scheme I normally see.

johnraff · 2024-10-01 04:16:24

^OK will do, GTK theme and icons too.

Of course there's still plenty of time to make changes if we see fit further down the road.

#1 2024-09-19 07:19:34

unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#2 2024-09-19 08:52:03

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#3 2024-09-20 01:35:01

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#4 2024-09-20 01:54:45

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#5 2024-09-20 07:00:26

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#6 2024-09-21 02:32:41

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#7 2024-09-21 04:23:41

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#8 2024-09-28 07:44:15

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#9 2024-09-28 16:24:29

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#10 2024-09-29 09:46:51

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#11 2024-09-30 07:03:13

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#12 2024-09-30 13:17:33

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

#13 2024-10-01 04:16:24

Re: unspash licence - Debian dfsg compatibility

Board footer