'ello. Yes, these are edits by Panc Software of original sprites by me. You can see them here: http://opengameart.org/content/roguelike-sprites-redshrike-mods
I hope you'll also share a link to your project when it is up. I for one would be very interested in seeing it.
Thanks for the edit, I appreciate you making the usability a bit wider in scope!
Re: CC-By-SA: Thanks for extending the licensing. However the RPG enemy set is universally CC-By licensed, and for maximal ease of use and compatibility I'm only including CC-By licensed assets in it. If you aren't comfortable relicensing under those terms that's fine. I do appreciate copyleft and I can understand why it's a major priority for people.
I appreciate you taking the time to make this modification. I know that the Wesnoth assets are all GPL-licensed, so I went ahead and added the GPL licenses as options on the original in case you wanted to make this one Wesnoth-compatible in license as well.
I would be interested in doing an edited version of this in the future to put into my slowly-growing side-view RPG enemy set (http://opengameart.org/content/sideview-pixel-art-rpg-enemy-sprites). However, the licensing on all of that is CC-By. Is there any chance you'd be willing to add that as a license option?
Quick, someone favorite something of mine so I'll be ahead of Rawdanitsu!
For the record, the reason for a lack of side and back death animations in the base was twofold. First, I was running behind in getting the base done and all animations polished before the LPC was ready to launch, so some cuts were made.
The other more compelling one is that a falling animation requires a lot more animating. Things like hats, which can be C/Ped for most frames, have to be animated with multiple unique frames in the fall, which adds a lot of work, especially for less experienced pixel artists. So while it wouldn't be too hard to add those poses to the base, it would be a real pain to expand all of the accessories to fit them.
@Adrix89: It is not a fix per se, it is a modification. While it makes the license closer to how I want it to work, that isn't necessarily the case for everyone. Which is preferred is up to the individual.
Note that I have selected a lot of the ones to be marked private. If one was marked private in error, it's probably my fault. And it's definitely nothign personal, I'm marking so many there will inevitably be mistakes.
I rather like the idea of having a separate license. Putting it in one package makes it more portable than having two separate things.
I really would love to have two -SA licenses, one which doesn't require you to open-source your project, and one which does, both with the copyleft for direct derivatives. But I know how difficult that is, and I know you only have so much time and energy.
So instead, I will just say: Bravo to you for OGA-By! I will be adding it to all of my CC-By art when I get a chance. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
As Bart says, this isn't about promoting DRM (heck no!) or Apple (ESPECIALLY not promoting Apple). I just don't want to punish innocent devs for Apple's sins. I want people to see FOSS as useful and welcoming.