The Mechanics of Open Source

Here is how free software works:
https://pixabay.com/en/forum/official-pixabay-news-2/the-pixabay-license-7823/

people shared various images under creative commons license, and one day site owners suddenly claimed ownership over user images, promising to sue anyone using them under free license.

This is illegal though and against the foss spirit.

Okay, I read the thread. They are not saying that they will sue you, this is still shitty though.
My question is, were all the images before 2019 under CC0? Why did they make their own license instead of allowing the use of CC-NC(-SA)?

make your're are game

>>2
also this

>>3

Why did they make their own license instead of allowing the use of CC-NC(-SA)?

Because CC-NC still allows distributing on other sites, while Stallmans are greedy and want everything for themselves. I.e. -NC license was made to help artists get publicity, without completely losing copyright. But it still could be useful for other people. Like i.e. when you need to write a research paper on neural nets and a collection of tagged photos, it is okay when they are -NC.

>>5
this has nothing to do with stallman, anus

>>6

implying Stallman doesn't control GPL

>>7

"GPLv2 or any later version"

Later version: this is now property of Stallman Enterprises Inc. Thank you for making me rich; you may now kindly fuck off.

>>5
Stallman is against NC and no-distibuting clauses, anus.

>>8
No matter what the later version is the older one is not revoked.

>>9

I'm a Stallman's bitch

okay.

check my free dubs

You should checkout what JASRAC did recently.

Lol. They banned me for mentioning existence of alternative sites.

>>13
now you have free time to make your're are game

>>13
Communism always ends with repressions.

bump

Nikita, what do you think of my replies?

>>17
fund my'm game

>>17
I think it is a waste of time arguing with site owners, who stole images. The better approach would be educating authors that if they want to share something on some site, the best license is CC-BY, not CC0. Because such sites will wait until you upload enough images, and then claim ownership over them, while you will be left banned if complain.

https://pixabay.com/en/forum/chitchat-pixabay-related-or-not-14/photos-used-on-other-websites-delivering-questiona-7875/
Not sure how to word this, but I was doing a google image search to see where my photos end up and who uses them. I found a site that is showing itself off as a free image site, possibly using the Pixabay API or something.

When I clicked on my photo, the site took me to an another site of a sexual nature in a new tab. At first I didn't notice the new tab, and after a dew seconds I clicked the image again (thinking I must not have clicked it properly the first time). This time I was taken to a new tab showing a website to join a game do with sex dolls!

I had a quick look at the pixabay policies and could not see anything in it regarding how images can be used in this manner, just that they can be used for commercial or non-commercial purposes.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but, this is not how I imagined or want my photos to be used.

Is this against Pixabay usage right?

The website I found it on is picturesboss.com (Please don't click on a photo if there are kids within view).

CC0 is just the same as public domain.
Not a copyright. It protects nothing, it specifically nullifies all your rights.

check'em

>>21
it is a bit more complex than that. placing everything in public domain does not nullify the so-called 'moral rights' (e.g. Nothings releases his libraries in public domain so you can use them, but you cannot legally claim that you created them). also, I don't think that 'nullify' is even a good term. this is important because it implies a few different things: you can't take a public domain work, release it under your're are license and then sue other people for releasing the same work.

>>23
That depends on local legislation and definition of "moral rights".

>>24
in general yes, but there's another reason why you can't sue people for releasing public domain shit you relicensed: public domain already gave them license, you can't retroactively take it away

>>25
Thats the theory. Megacorps with dedicated lawyer brigades who study every single loophole in existance would not hesitate to bankrupt anyone trying to defend the "public domain". There lots of gotchas on how things like collection copyright and derivative works apply.

>>26
which is an issue, of course, but doesn't affect some small site operated by a random anus like pixabay. a random anus isn't a megacorp, he's an anus on a power trip