3 ms·

"All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero" implies literally nothing beyond CC0, in which case they could just say CC0 and not

"All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero" implies literally nothing beyond CC0, in which case they could just say CC0 and not try to confuse their intended (license-wary) audience. (edit: clarity)

orblivion 10y ago
Could you clarify? You said "...licensed under Creative Commons Zero" means nothing. But then you said they could "just say CC0", which according to what you just said also means nothing. Why would you recommend that, then? I think I'm just parsing this wrong.
- mackmgg 10y ago
  I think Palomides meant that it means nothing is different, not that it means nothing. "Literally nothing" was the answer to "How does the Unsplash license [1] differ from the Creative Commons Zero license?"
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I think I'm just parsing this wrong Yes. Grantparent asked "How does the Unsplash license [1] differ from the Creative Commons Zero license?" and parent answered: "All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero" implies literally nothing". Which should be read as meaning "implies literally nothing [is different between the two licenses]" -- and not that what they wrote means nothing.
x1798DE 10y ago
I don't understand why they call it an Unsplash license. I would have understood (and been thrilled by) this immediately if I had realized it was CC-0.
- yitchelle 10y ago
  Some call it branding....
joeld42 10y ago
They do the site for the marketing value. People see the quality behind unsplash and that builds credibility for the agency behind it. It's not cheap to host and run (they had a blog post about that a few months back). Having a named license at least helps spread the word a bit. The customer might not see it, but the designers, engineers and creatives involved probably will. It's a great resource.

3 ms·

"All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero" implies literally nothing beyond CC0, in which case they could just say CC0 and not

by Palomides 10y ago

orblivion 10y ago
Could you clarify? You said "...licensed under Creative Commons Zero" means nothing. But then you said they could "just say CC0", which according to what you just said also means nothing. Why would you recommend that, then? I think I'm just parsing this wrong.
- mackmgg 10y ago
  I think Palomides meant that it means nothing is different, not that it means nothing. "Literally nothing" was the answer to "How does the Unsplash license [1] differ from the Creative Commons Zero license?"
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I think I'm just parsing this wrong Yes. Grantparent asked "How does the Unsplash license [1] differ from the Creative Commons Zero license?" and parent answered: "All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero" implies literally nothing". Which should be read as meaning "implies literally nothing [is different between the two licenses]" -- and not that what they wrote means nothing.
x1798DE 10y ago
I don't understand why they call it an Unsplash license. I would have understood (and been thrilled by) this immediately if I had realized it was CC-0.
- yitchelle 10y ago
  Some call it branding....
joeld42 10y ago
They do the site for the marketing value. People see the quality behind unsplash and that builds credibility for the agency behind it. It's not cheap to host and run (they had a blog post about that a few months back). Having a named license at least helps spread the word a bit. The customer might not see it, but the designers, engineers and creatives involved probably will. It's a great resource.