Just in case a note: Licensing your work under CC-BY-SA does not mean that you can not license it under other terms as well.

You can allow use under proprietary terms. This would allow one additional specific use, but it could not be shared with others, meaning you control the people who can use your work without having to follow free license restrictions and you can even limit the scope (only one project - a term that might require definition in the agreement though).

For example such a license could state something like "TEAMNAME may use my work for PROJECTNAME and may not re-distribute my work to others, except as part of PROJECTNAME. TEAMNAME may not sublicense my work. TEAMNAME may not use my work for any other purpose. TEAMNAME specifically may use screenshots and videos of PROJECTNAME, in which my work is displayed for marketing purposes." - something like that. Note that I have hardly any experience with proprietary licenses though and this example might have loopholes and be incomplete.

I recommend that you demand compensation in return for using your work under non-free terms. If you don't care for the money it, you can ask that they donate for a cause you approve of, for example in my case I would ask for donations to OGA or Freesound or perhaps CC.

Well the anti-drm clause of the CC liscense is debatibly not an issue in IOS, the .app file that is created is simply a zip file.

There is a text file that could be consiered DRM that is in the same .app but there is no drm on the files inside the .app(.zip) ie the art.

All this said CC says that you cant use CC art on IOS but as the .app has no drm on it other then being a zip, and obviousally a zip isnt drm. Well its conviluted...

There's nothing really unfair about giving permission to one group in particular IMO.  It's your art, and you have every legal and moral right to give out these permissions as you see fit--permissions which you've already been more than generous with.  And it's certainly possible to restrict permission to one group of people, or to only give it out on request.  That's how generally how copyright law works, after all.

Personally, I am always open to making these specific exceptions/permissions for my CC-By licensed art (which still has the potentially troublesome anti-DRM clause) on request from an interested dev.  I dislike Apple very strongly, but I am always happy to see a developer getting involved in using freely-licensed assets, and hopefully looking more closely at the open source community in general.  In an ideal world this wouldn't be a problem, but we're still working with imperfect licenses which don't always match the current market, and many devs who aren't always aware of what the open source community has to offer, so I'm willing to deal with it.  I don't think that the community here tends to look down on this attitude at all.

On the other hand, I can also understand not wanting to support Apple's very closed system (and mindset) at all, and being unwilling to grant exceptions so people can participate in it.  I don't think that the community here looks down on this attitude either.  It's all about what your goals are for your art, and what you're comfortable with.

An addition: When you have published a work under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and Person J requests alternative terms of use, you can agree to that. Be it for free or for pay. These new terms mean that Person J will have to adhere to these terms when using your work or Person J can still use your work under CC-BY-SA 3.0. These alternative terms can apply only to Person J, if worded correctly.

"Would it be possible to just tolerate the use in iOS software as long as the terms of CC-BY-SA are followed?"

There is a little bit of information in the CC FAQ on this: #Can_I_change_the_license_terms_or_conditions

I know this is an old thread, but I would also like to weigh in as an iOS/Android developer.

I am not willing to open-source (most of) my games, and I would like to port my games to as many platforms as possible.  However, I would be willing to upload any derivative artwork I did using BY-SA assets here at opengameart.org.

My temporary solution is I generally just avoid CC-BY-SA assets when looking for things for my games because of the headaches involved.  This is really sad, because there are some amazing assets out there I'd like to use.

Would love to hear others' thoughts on the matter. I'm not willing to wade through tons of differing opinions and legalese just to find out whether I can use -SA assets on iOS :/.  I'm a programmer, not a lawyer.

On iOS, I would stick to OGA-By and CCO.  That anti-DRM clause has some issues.

Well, since the thread has been necro-ed already, I might as well throw in my two cents.

kheftel, short answer: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Long answer: you apparently want to take advantage of open culture without participating in it. Doesn't work that way. The anti-DRM clause in the Creative Commons licenses is there to prevent exactly this kind of abuse. What Apple does by banning open source and mandating DRM on their apps is highly damaging: culture can't go on, let alone progress, if we can't build on what came before. If you truly believe in "protecting your intellectual property", you should put your money where your mouth is and pay for what you use. Can't afford it? Welcome to capitalism.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. You like how it sounds when you're on the receiving end?

Wow, that was a little rude and sadly out of character for the usually friendly people I find on this site.

it's self-righteous, accusatory reactions like this that turn me off from even asking the question about whether -SA is okay to use in games on ios. I'm only trying to have a discussion. You assume I'm not willing to pay for assets, that I just want a free ride, that I won't participate in "open culture", when neither of these are true. I have some original artwork I'm planning on sharing here, I'm just polishing/organizing it, and I'm not planning on using CC-BY-SA because of its restrictions. I may eventually open source my games; however, none of my code is in a state yet where I'd be comfortable having other people see it without being embarrassed by it. 

just yesterday Bart told me the generally-accepted consensus is that you can use CC-BY-SA art in games without releasing all the source code. He suggested I get permission from individual artists before using their -SA assets in a closed-source game. The fact that there is no one accepted answer has led to my current policy of not even considering CC-BY-SA because I don't want to do anything against the artists' wishes. I'll probably end up following Bart's advice, though. 

Also, it's trivial to unzip an .ipa file and extract the assets. There is no DRM there. And as I said before I would share any art modifications with the community. 

I meant no disrespect, I am simply trying to understand. I have read through many threads, trying to understand what is and is not allowed, and would rather spend that time creating art or code. 

I apologize for sounding rude. I tried not to and failed. I did say unpleasant things, but that's not the same.

Look, licensing is a mess. The best crafted free software / free culture licenses give raise to conundrums like that all the time. (Goes to show how wrong it is to try and "protect" infinite goods.) In fact, I suspect most creators don't really understand the licenses they apply to their own work. I do it as a general statement of intent. It's not like I could enforce my rights should someone breach the license. If you need to ask the author for clarification, or a lawyer, then Creative Commons licensing just plain doesn't work.

That said, all Creative Commons licenses have the same anti-DRM clause, I think (apart from CC0). And if you say art can be trivially extracted from an app file, that shouldn't even apply. But do the App Store terms of use allow such art in the first place?

The whole DRM clause doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

If the idea was to be able to replace assets, similar to LGPL and libraries, then the license needs to go further and state that the resource must be used in the format supplied (or something similar). DRM is not the only way to prevent someone from getting at the asset. Isn't a protected Unity package a form of DRM?

To comply with GPL, I don't have to allow the source to be extracted from my program, I just have to make it available to anyone interested. And, technically I could release a GPL'd program with DRM.

If the interest is to prevent someone from making money from your work, there's another license for that.

I'm not sure what the purpose of the clause is.

It would be nice, at the author's discretion, to be able to pay to waive the DRM clause. If I decide that iOS users can't live without my game, I have a way of using the resource.

Sometimes the restrictions of CC licenses outweigh the advantage of being free. It's usually easier to pay for an asset and not be restricted (or at least not as restricted).

I do understand that an artist wants to be credited for their work. Most people are happy to ensure people are credited for resources they use. Maybe we need a CC_½_BY license that ensures the artist is credited, but doesn't restrict usage of the resource. The OGA licenses are a good example of this, but they are not universal and every artist isn't necessarily interested in using them. If a resource is uploaded to another site, there's a discrepancy in the licenses.

Just a quick clarification:

It is not the -SA part that prevents use on iOS, and yes it is possible to use CC-by-SA assets in closed source code projects (a short coming of that license in my opinion).

It is the anti-DRM clause in both the CC-by and the CC-by-SA that prevents use in iOS, or rather it is Apple's absurd DRM licensing that conflicts with them. Note how it is perfectly fine to use both in Android games sold on the playstore or other places not owned by Apple.

P.S.: "none of my code is in a state yet where I'd be comfortable having other people see it without being embarrassed by it. " is just a laughable excuse for not open-sourceing your code. I can guarantee you that any code, no matter how well you think it is right now, will look stupid to you in a few years.

@Claudeb: " Doesn't work that way."

Of course it works that way, at least some of the time.  What do you think CC0/OGA-By are for?  It is my sincere hope that people who benefit from my freely-licensed work will themselves get interested in FOSS development regardless of what the license strictly requires.  But another goal is to just help lower the barrier to entry for devs making the kinds of games I like, as well as helping there be games out there where the bits I find most interesting are reusable and expandable.  For the most part, I think it's counterproductive to ask too much of devs who aren't (yet) on the FOSS train.  And I'm not saying that anyone else needs to approach it the way I do and I most certainly don't look down on anyone licensing their work however they please, be it CC0 or GPL.  But what I am saying is that not everyone participates in "Free Culture" for the same reasons or with the same goals, and it's not productive or helpful to impinge someone's character because they don't view it the same way as you do.

@Cdoty: that's what OGA-By is.  It is just CC-By with the DRM clause removed.  It covers the usecase just fine, and there's no reason other sites couldn't use it as well.

@Julius: "a short coming of that license in my opinion"

Honestly, I don't fully agree.  I think there is merit both to having a license that requires the art only be used in FOSS projects as well as one that is less sticky and only requires that direct derivatives of the work itself be freely licensed.  The real shortcoming is that some people think it's one and some think it's the other and there's been a fog over which it really is (though the latter seems to be favored now).  But goodness knows that's been chewed over enough.

To comply with GPL, I don't have to allow the source to be extracted from my program, I just have to make it available to anyone interested. And, technically I could release a GPL'd program with DRM.

That's because software without source code isn't the same as a sprite sheet only available as a PNG. You can easily change and repurpose the latter if you can extract it, unlike with machine code. Also, when the GPL was drafted, DRM for software wasn't yet an issue (whereas patents were, for example, hence the dedicated clauses in the license), and the GPL only concerns itself with software. Art simply faces different issues in the digital world, and the more modern Creative Commons licenses reflect that.

DRM is evil, there are no two ways about that. If you haven't butted your head against it, you probably don't believe me. But consider a question: why was it necessary to create an special license -- OGA-BY -- just so people can use free art on a single, specific platform (iOS)? Is that single platform so incredibly important? Really?

Actually, it isn't just Apple. Nintendo also has a limitation against open sourced anything. I'm assuming Microsoft and Sony probably do too.

All of that makes sense, because if you use GPL software you could be forced to release your sources, which could contain Nintendo trade secrets.

I fully agree on DRM, it punishes the ones that purchase the products. But, the DRM clause seems more political than 'fighting for freedom'. As I stated above, I could simply convert the resources to my own game format, and I've effectively blocked you from getting that spritesheet. Conversely, if you've purchased the ipa, and backed it up with iTunes, you can easily open the file and extract the contents. Do a google seach for 'extract files for an ipa'. A Youtube video will show how easy it is.

DRM, in this case, doesn't protect the contents, it protects the distribution of the entire package.

"why was it necessary to create an special license -- OGA-BY -- just so people can use free art on a single, specific platform (iOS)? Is that single platform so incredibly important? Really?"

Well, depending on what measure you're using, iOS is either the most popular, most profitable gaming platform currently being developed for, or it's second only to the desktop PC. It's hugely important. Forbidding the use of CC assets on such a platform would be detrimental to the developers attempting to use the assets, and to the CC movement as a whole.

I have no idea whether it is possible to reconcile the terms of the CC-BY license with Apple's DRM on a technical or semantic level, but I do believe that it's possible to use the iOS platform while maintaining the "spirit" of creative commons by properly attributing the artists, open sourcing code or assets where appropriate, and making payments to the contributing artists if necessary.

@cdoty: To clarify the reason for the clause, it's to prevent additional restrictions (legal or technical) being applied to the licence which takes away those rights.

"DRM is not the only way to prevent someone from getting at the asset. Isn't a protected Unity package a form of DRM?"

I don't know about Unity; but CC define "technological measures" as "defined with reference to Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty". A key point is whether circumventing the protection would be illegal in countries that implement that treaty (e.g., the US, with the DMCA).

You say it's possible to get at the assets on IOS anyway. There are three possibilities:

1. The legal terms of service say that you can't do it.
2. Doing so would be illegal under laws like the DMCA.
3. It's not an issue - in which case this is all a red herring, and people can use CC licences after all :)

"The OGA licenses are a good example of this, but they are not universal and every artist isn't necessarily interested in using them. If a resource is uploaded to another site, there's a discrepancy in the licenses."

If a resource is uploaded to another site and it has to be under CC-BY instead of OGA-BY, how is that different to uploading it to Apple app store? In both cases, it's uploaded somewhere under a more restrictive licence. If it's okay for Apple because people can still download from OGA, then that applies to any other site. If you think it's important for the licence to be preserved - well, now you see why some people prefer CC-BY :)

(This is one of the paradoxes of licencing - yes, I can take anyone's OGA-BY and relicence it as CC-BY! Because that's the very freedom they grant, when they allow people to apply additional restrictions.)

"Nintendo also has a limitation against open sourced anything. I'm assuming Microsoft and Sony probably do too."

Do you mean consoles? Maybe, but that's bad too :)

claudeb asked why this issue only seemed to come up with IOS. Android is massively more popular, and I don't know if IOS being more profitable affects things, if anything, that should be a reason why developers should be able to pay for artists rather than taking Free art :) But yes, there are plenty of developers who want to write games for IOS anyway. But really, I don't think that matters, it's more that this is the first time it's been an issue, other platforms don't have the restriction that additional terms must be applied and you can only distribute through the company. One exception is consoles as cdoty points out, but those are sufficiently harder to develop for that you didn't have many indie/freeware developers in the first place - the companies developing for consoles would be paying for their own art anyway.

I disagree with SketchyLogic that CC not being usable on Apple app store is deterimental "to the CC movement as a whole", when being against legal and technical restrictions seems to be a belief of Creative Commons organisation. It may be hugely important to an IOS developer, but that doesn't mean it's hugely important to other people with views against DRM or closed platforms (who aren't going to persuaded by the more profitable argument, when they're not making the money, and Apple is taking a 30% cut - it's like arguing that Windows makes more money than Linux, when in fact the lower costs is a possible benefit of Free Software - plus as an Android user, it's hard for me to contribute to a company's profits when they only release for the fewer Apple users in the first place - there are some games that I'd love to pay for, but can't). Within the Free/Open movements, there's long been a debate about "liberal" versus "copyleft" licences (e.g., BSD vs GPL). I think there's a place for both - so it is a good thing that OGA-BY now exists.

(Getting off-topic, but interesting report at http://gearnuke.com/pc-dominates-market-51-console-30-mobile-13-accordin... on 2013 revenue share, showing PC at 51%, consoles 30%, mobile 13%; it doesn't break down by platform though, and unclear whether it includes ad revenue.)

Very much on topic, I just ran across this article criticizing license proliferation: http://questioncopyright.org/letter_against_stm_license_proliferation.

And cdoty, fighting for freedom is political, pretty much by definition.

Honestly more then anything else CC says you cant use them on the apple store because you cant use the GPL, even tho the wording is different and the meaning isnt the same.

More of a STICK TOGETHER PEOPLE FIGHT THE POWER then a real issue.

CC explicitly allows you to make "technological modifications" ie putting your cc art into a .zip (ios .app file)

Teh big issue comes in where apple says you can only download 10 copies etc etc, however creative commons (unlike the GPL) does not require you to provide the source or any number of copy's even one, as such allowing you to download it 10 times is completely within compliance as you are not limited AFTER you download it. Apple also says you cant transfer or decompile the source however the exact wording has one special clause.

=====

You may not copy (except as expressly permitted by this license and the Usage Rules), decompile, reverse-engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works of the Licensed Application, any updates, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent that any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by the licensing terms governing use of any open-sourced components included with the Licensed Application). Any attempt to do so is a violation of the rights of the Licensor and its licensors. If you breach this restriction, you may be subject to prosecution and damages.

=====

They actually even say that you can do it, if its open source...

Basically the long story short is that legally there is very little reason you -cant- use Creative Commons works on the apple store, unlike the GPL as it provides a few specific things

1) with Creative commons you have the EXPLICIT right to repackage in another form INCLUDING technical modifications EVEN DRM.

For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)(4) never produces Adapted Material.

If its not adapted material it doesn't get the Creative Commons virus basically. As such packaging something in a unreadable encrypted format it totally legit, while ios app's are simply a .zip which is even less restrictive.

2) You are allowed to LEGALLY decompile the zip into a readable format IF ITS OPEN SOURCE (unless Creative Commons isnt open source ^.^)

So then why isnt the GPL ok but Creative Commons is (or should be)? Its good ol 2(a)(4) in Creative Commons, the GPL doesnt have any similer language that allows you to do -anything- so long as its repackaging it.

Question 1: But wait apple says you cant liscense under any other rights then what they say! "You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, redistribute or sublicense the Licensed Application."

Answer: Not entirely true, they make an exception for open source copying, its just not enough to get around the tivioisation clause in the GPL however creative commons doesnt work in the same way

Question 2: what about apple's "unless a Product is accompanied by a separate license agreement, in which case the terms of that separate license agreement will govern"

Answer: um duh, pretty clear there your own liscense overrides apples so long as you include it

Question 3: but https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforce... says your a crackpot!

Answer: I may be a crackpot but that post is years old, the liscense no longer includes the key " in addition to" clause, as such its entirely possible the GPL is compatible at this point and time.

Technical modifications are allowed in the GPL too (I can put it into a zip file). CC BY 4 is just more explicit about the difference between a technical modification and Effective Technological Measure.

It's good if they've changed the terms to allow Open Source, I believe Microsoft for the Windows Store (which also originally had similar problems IIRC) does a similar thing. So if DRM is no longer enforced, it may be that this issue is out of date anyway (and interesting to note that actually it is worth fighting these things). Are there any news articles on this?

These things do have the possible problem that although licences like CC BY are seen as "compatible" with, or the art equivalents of Free and Open Source software, I don't think any CC licences are OSI approved (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ) - probably because they weren't written with source code in mind. So it may be that the mandatory licence for non-Open Source means that CC BY etc still can't be used in non-Open Source products, so those people should still stick with OGA BY or CC0. Also it's not uncommon for Open Source games to be multiple-licenced, i.e., source/binary under an Open Source licence, and different licence(s) for the art, so who knows what it means if another licence says "you can't do any of this, except for bits which are Open Source".

There is no news on it because the suituation has barely changed, there has always been the wording about "open source" and "separate license", apple never had really any intention of not allowing open source stuff in the apple store, the GPL guys just came to a semi resonable conclusion because the "in addition to" wording.

In all reality I wouldn't expect any judge to hold up the FSF's interpertation, however that said they did come to the right conclusion because there is a chance, albet a small one, a judge could have seen in the same way and they should play the game as careful as possible.

Basically they said "there is a chance of there being a problem so we cant say there is no issue", and creative commons hung there hat on that due to there political anti-DRM crusade.

Apple removed the "in addition to" wording years ago, and realistically as quickly as was possible for a company of there size, changing legal wording is something a company like Apple cant do overnight. This wasnt really a case of "winning" the fight, but a suituation existing that was never the original intention anyways of any party and it just taking some time to sort out, that said the FSF hasnt re-evaluated the new liscenses for other potantal issues in 4 years.

The -only- issue with Creative Commons in the apple store is there ambiguious wording in the liscense, which leaves both the artist exposed to potental usage they didnt want, as well as leaving users of CC works open to leagal ramifications, BUT FIGHT THE DRM! ya srlsy...

All this said there is one important thing to keep in mind, the GPL has a cure clause that protects you if you use the GPL work in an improper way, there is no such clause in CC. That means that you can use GPL works in the app store etc without fear of being sued, and if the author doesnt like it then they can have it taken down, (assuming you dont want to argue and fight it in court about it being a legal use under the liscense) however CC offers you no such protection and you could be sued from day one and hope that you win your day in court.