5 ms·

The license (https://undraw.co/license https://undraw.co/license) of the illustrations is definitely not open-source: >This license does not include the right

The license (https://undraw.co/license https://undraw.co/license) of the illustrations is definitely not open-source: >This license does not include the right to compile assets, vectors or images from unDraw to replicate a similar or competing service, in any form or distribute the assets in packs. This extends to automated and non-automated ways to link, embed, scrape, search or download the assets included on the website without our consent.

koboll 7y ago
Looks like it's based on the Unsplash license (https://unsplash.com/license https://unsplash.com/license) which is similarly not open source. "Free for commercial use" would be a more accurate description.
cmurf 7y ago
What is the relevance of "to replicate a similar or competing service"? Reads to me like they don't want you using the output generated fro unDraw, reverse engineering it in order to create a competitor.
- anges244 7y ago
  Basically that's there to protect Katerina's illustrations. The reverse-engineering has been achieved by a bunch of people and that's ok but exploiting the work she put into each design was really frustrating.
guelo 7y ago
I would say that each image has an open source license. What is not open source is the collection of images as shown on unDraw. > unDraw grants you an nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use the assets provided from unDraw for free
- eitland 7y ago
  So kind of like Red Hat? Edit: thinking of it again - kind of like software on github can be open source even if github isn't.
  - necovek 7y ago
    Not really. You can clone all of the github's open source repos and host them elsewhere (eg. use gitlab ;). This is open source with a restriction on agregate use, thus making it officially not open source.
- tyingq 7y ago
  "the collection" Well, any collection, even one of the images, if it's served up in a similar service.
mc3 7y ago
It's not free. But it is open source.
- anges244 7y ago
  It is completely free.
  - mc3 7y ago
    Sorry, I mean free as in "Libre". Freedom to do what you want with the software.
    - Eikon 7y ago
      That's really a stance of the FSF I dislike, redefining "Free" to something that was ideologically pleasing to them but that means something absolutely different for everyone else. Creating tons of confusion and not helping their cause at all as free proprietary software may benefit from the label when distributed to the masses as they heard "free" software is good.
      - jordigh 7y ago
        The FSF did not originate the meaning of "free software". They insist upon it, but before 1998 when "open source" was coined, "free software" was just what everyone called it. Even OpenBSD, who staunchly disagrees on a lot of things with the FSF, has been calling itself "free software" since 1996.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - rambojazz 7y ago
        It's not a redefinition. "Free" carries at least 2 meanings in English.
        7y ago
hinkley 7y ago
You've never heard of people plagiarizing others' entire sites before? This is exactly the sort of thing you say when you're trying to make data public but keep someone else from slapping a different header on your data and pretending they did all the work.
- usrusr 7y ago
  The licence itself is fine. Calling that licence "open source" is what's questionable. It's almost like taking a term laboriously established by others and claiming it your own.
  - amelius 7y ago
    The term "open source" really doesn't say anything about the license. It just says that the source is open. Which in case of vector graphics might not say much.
    - prepend 7y ago
      I disagree. The open source definition includes quite a bit about the license. There’s an organization (OSI) that works on this, and has for decades. The definition is available at https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated The ability to redistribute and change is as important, I think, as the ability to see the source.
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      I think you're going to run into the same thing I ran into here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20864837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20864837 which is that the term Open Source has been taken over by opensource.org. Although I suppose you won't get as many downvotes as I did (the reason for which still eludes me)
      - usrusr 7y ago
        > “which is that the term Open Source has been taken over by opensource.org“ https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history claims that the term did not really exist before those behind OSI/opensource.org started using it. While the originality of any composition of dictionary terms is debatable, I'm quite willing to accept that claim. I remember hot debates about the conceptual differences between FSF and OSI but none about prior use of the term.

koboll 7y ago

Looks like it's based on the Unsplash license (https://unsplash.com/license https://unsplash.com/license) which is similarly not open source. "Free for commercial use" would be a more accurate description.

cmurf 7y ago

What is the relevance of "to replicate a similar or competing service"? Reads to me like they don't want you using the output generated fro unDraw, reverse engineering it in order to create a competitor.

anges244 7y ago
Basically that's there to protect Katerina's illustrations. The reverse-engineering has been achieved by a bunch of people and that's ok but exploiting the work she put into each design was really frustrating.

guelo 7y ago

I would say that each image has an open source license. What is not open source is the collection of images as shown on unDraw. > unDraw grants you an nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use the assets provided from unDraw for free

eitland 7y ago
So kind of like Red Hat? Edit: thinking of it again - kind of like software on github can be open source even if github isn't.
- necovek 7y ago
  Not really. You can clone all of the github's open source repos and host them elsewhere (eg. use gitlab ;). This is open source with a restriction on agregate use, thus making it officially not open source.
tyingq 7y ago
"the collection" Well, any collection, even one of the images, if it's served up in a similar service.

mc3 7y ago

It's not free. But it is open source.

anges244 7y ago
It is completely free.
- mc3 7y ago
  Sorry, I mean free as in "Libre". Freedom to do what you want with the software.
  - Eikon 7y ago
    That's really a stance of the FSF I dislike, redefining "Free" to something that was ideologically pleasing to them but that means something absolutely different for everyone else. Creating tons of confusion and not helping their cause at all as free proprietary software may benefit from the label when distributed to the masses as they heard "free" software is good.
    - jordigh 7y ago
      The FSF did not originate the meaning of "free software". They insist upon it, but before 1998 when "open source" was coined, "free software" was just what everyone called it. Even OpenBSD, who staunchly disagrees on a lot of things with the FSF, has been calling itself "free software" since 1996.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - rambojazz 7y ago
      It's not a redefinition. "Free" carries at least 2 meanings in English.
      - 7y ago

hinkley 7y ago

You've never heard of people plagiarizing others' entire sites before? This is exactly the sort of thing you say when you're trying to make data public but keep someone else from slapping a different header on your data and pretending they did all the work.

usrusr 7y ago
The licence itself is fine. Calling that licence "open source" is what's questionable. It's almost like taking a term laboriously established by others and claiming it your own.
- amelius 7y ago
  The term "open source" really doesn't say anything about the license. It just says that the source is open. Which in case of vector graphics might not say much.
  - prepend 7y ago
    I disagree. The open source definition includes quite a bit about the license. There’s an organization (OSI) that works on this, and has for decades. The definition is available at https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated The ability to redistribute and change is as important, I think, as the ability to see the source.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    I think you're going to run into the same thing I ran into here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20864837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20864837 which is that the term Open Source has been taken over by opensource.org. Although I suppose you won't get as many downvotes as I did (the reason for which still eludes me)
    - usrusr 7y ago
      > “which is that the term Open Source has been taken over by opensource.org“ https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history claims that the term did not really exist before those behind OSI/opensource.org started using it. While the originality of any composition of dictionary terms is debatable, I'm quite willing to accept that claim. I remember hot debates about the conceptual differences between FSF and OSI but none about prior use of the term.