[xeeeeeeeeeeenu]

The 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]

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

[hinkley]

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]

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]

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]

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

The ability to redistribute and change is as important, I think, as the ability to see the source.

[bryanrasmussen]

I think you're going to run into the same thing I ran into here 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]

> “which is that the term Open Source has been taken over by opensource.org“

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.

[gvjddbnvdrbv]

Open Source has a precise and well widely understood meaning that is entirely related to the license. If you use it to mean something else people will be confused.

You want the word shared source maybe? Or viewable source?

[resoluteteeth]

That is not true. "Open source" specifically implies certain rights beyond simply allowing people to view the source code (which is known as "shared source").

Many companies like Microsoft allow people to view the source code to their closed-source products under restrictive licenses, but nobody would claim that these products are "open source" as a result.

"Open" doesn't just mean "viewable."

[guelo]

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]

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]

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]

"the collection"

Well, any collection, even one of the images, if it's served up in a similar service.

[cmurf]

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]

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.

[mc3]

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

[jordigh]

Open source is meant to be a corporate-friendly synonym for "free software".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Origins

This basically means that if it's not free, it's not open source either.

[mc3]

Thanks for the downvotes. Read up on https://www.fsf.org/

[anges244]

It is completely free.

[mc3]

Sorry, I mean free as in "Libre". Freedom to do what you want with the software.

[Eikon]

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]

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.

[rambojazz]

It's not a redefinition. "Free" carries at least 2 meanings in English.

[Eikon]

You are right.

Thinking about it, my previous point may be heavily biased by how “free software” sounds and how the wording is used in my native language.

[lopmotr]

FSF's "free" is neither. You can't do whatever you want with GPL software and if you want to do those forbidden things, you can sometimes buy permission using money.