Active Forum Topics - (view more)
- Using Liberated Pixel Cup Assets in a Commercial Game by TinaBlackwood
- Weekly Challenge: Reborn (due Jan. 15th) by dannorder
- Weekly Challenge: Science! (due Jan. 29th) by dannorder
- Programmer looking for a project by Aeitia
- Hi I'm a 2D Graphic Design Artist (Vector) for hire by nikkyoryzano
- Help! by MedicineStorm
- What happened to George_'s "16x16 Game Assets"? by MedicineStorm
- need help to understad LPC license by capbros
Recent Comments - (view more)
- Re: "Military Confrontation" and "Battle" by Aeitia
- Re: Resurrection Spell [SFX] by Chromaeleon
- Re: Orange Slime by Chromaeleon
- Re: "Military Confrontation" and "Battle" by Peixeira
- Re: Resurrection Spell [SFX] by farcodev
- Re: "Cold to Lukewarm Mixia" by Aeitia
- Re: "Cold to Lukewarm Mixia" by Rainbow Design
- Re: Drought tiles pack by amounabik
Popular This Month
Favorite Submitters This Month
Popular Art Collections - (view more)
New Art Collections - (view more)
OGA-BY 3.0 FAQ
Note: This FAQ is intended to help people understand the nature and purpose of OGA-BY, and is not a legal document. Please see the text of the license here:
What is OGA-BY 3.0?
OGA-BY 3.0 is a license based on CC-BY 3.0 that removes that license's restriction on technical measures that prevent redistribution of a work.
Is OGA-BY endorsed by the Creative Commons?
No. The Creative Commons does not endorse OGA-BY in any way.
Why do we need this license? Does this mean that you like DRM?
We need this license because a lot of artists feel that the restrictions on technical measures in CC-BY go against the spirit of CC-BY, which is to require attribution without imposing other requirements.
OpenGameArt does not in any way endorse the use of DRM; however, we do endorse the right of artists to license their works the way they want, and would like to provide them with a means to do that so long as the license in question is still compatible with free and open source software.
Arent't their enough new licenses already? Why not use [insert license here]?
CC-BY is well known and people are comfortable with it. While we considered other licenses, we ultimately decided that it would be best to stick with what most people already know.
Note that this has been argued extensively on the forums, and is not subject to change.
Why not just have a rider for CC-BY that removes the clauses about technical restrictions?
A couple of reasons:
- It's unlikely that any other projects or websites will ever adopt a rider as a standard.
- From a technical standpoint, it would be very difficult to implement a license rider in a sane way. Imagine that you're searching OGA for content that can be used with DRM. You would have to search for CC0 content, plus CC-BY content but only content that has the rider checked. Since CC0 content doesn't require the rider in order to be used with DRM, simply searching on the rider would exclude a lot of usable content. From a technical standpoint, having a rider instead of a modified license would be a huge mess.
Does OGA endorse the use of OGA-BY over any other of the licenses on this site?
No. Artists should choose whichever license(s) for their work that they feel the most comfortable with. OGA-BY was the only name we could come up with that wasn't either awkward or potentially confusing.
Is there an OGA-BY 2.0 or 1.0?
No. The version number of OGA-BY tracks the version number of the CC-BY license it is based on. If the FSF and/or Debian legal approve of the CC 4.0 licenses, there will probably be an OGA-BY 4.0.
If the technical restrictions clauses are removed from a later version of CC-BY, will OGA-BY be discontinued?
Yes, because there wouldn't be much point to it.
Another project, website, or distribution doesn't accept content that's licensed OGA-BY, but they do accept CC-BY content. What can I do?
OGA-BY 3.0 explicitly allows content to be relicensed under CC-BY 3.0. Just change the license to CC-BY 3.0. No need to get explicit permission to do this, as the license already allows it.