This is much better than a "personal use" license or a non-commercial license, but the added licensing terms are, in my opinion, still pretty restrictive:
"""
a. Sale or distribution of Content as digital Content or as digital wallpapers (such as on stock media websites or as NFTs);
b. Sale or distribution of Content e.g. as a posters, digital prints, music files or physical products, without adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value
c. Depiction of identifiable persons in an offensive, pornographic, obscene, immoral, defamatory or libelous way; or
d. Any suggestion that there is an endorsement of products and services by depicted persons, brands, vocalists and organisations, unless permission was granted.
"""
This puts is squarely in the 'non-libre' or 'non-open' side of things.
For example, this would be in violation of any GPL-like license. While software licenses don't necessarily apply to things like pictures, I would be hesitant to include any pictures from Pixabay in any libre software I was creating.
a. and b. make it non-free because you basically can't redistribute in unmodified form.
However, restrictions like c. and d. (among others) could come into play however the image is licensed. And, in fact, absent a model release form, any use of images of recognizable people for any sort of marketing or advertising use is suspect.
I don't disagree. Those uses are probably mostly not issues the government would involve itself in but could be legitimate civil torts. It may be worth reminding people of those things somewhere but arguably doesn't belong in the license itself.
"""
a. Sale or distribution of Content as digital Content or as digital wallpapers (such as on stock media websites or as NFTs);
b. Sale or distribution of Content e.g. as a posters, digital prints, music files or physical products, without adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value
c. Depiction of identifiable persons in an offensive, pornographic, obscene, immoral, defamatory or libelous way; or
d. Any suggestion that there is an endorsement of products and services by depicted persons, brands, vocalists and organisations, unless permission was granted.
"""
This puts is squarely in the 'non-libre' or 'non-open' side of things.
For example, this would be in violation of any GPL-like license. While software licenses don't necessarily apply to things like pictures, I would be hesitant to include any pictures from Pixabay in any libre software I was creating.