8x8 8-bit Styled Grassland Tileset
Thursday, January 10, 2013 - 06:37
Art Type:
License(s):
Collections:
Favorites:
10
Share Icons:
Preview:
I felt like trying to make a smaller tileset than normal (I normally do 16x16), so yeah. I'm probably not going to use it, I'm not particularly happy with it(but I'm usually not happy with my work so...), and it is technically "finished", so if you want to use it, you can. Comes with and without outlines on non-solid surfaces.
Attribution Instructions:
Attribution is appreciated, but it is not required. If you choose to do so, please use the handle "Impossible Realms"
File(s):
GBC-styled Grassland.PNG 1.4 Kb [140 download(s)]
Comments
Wouldn't LGPL art essentially be GPL? Or, would it fall under LGPL if the original image was incorporated into the game?
Well, according to the FAQ, LGPL means if you use it, you redistribute any changes you make, but GPL means you must redistribute the entire game. I'm not sure how accurate or up to date the FAQ is though...
It's accurate enough.
Art licensing has been under enough of a debate that I wonder why anybody would release art under a GPL license at all, let alone software (different debate). CC licenses should be more than sufficient for artists to feel protected with their work, so why choose such a horribly restrictive license as the GPL?
Case and point -- if I used art submitted under the GPL in my project, the ENTIRE PROJECT would need to be released under the GPL, source code included. In other words, unless a project is already realeased under the GPL, people (like myself) won't use said art. Which is a downright shame because there's a lot of good art released under really bad licensing.
@leeor_net: Yep, never been a big fan of either using GPL code or releasing my own code under GPL. It refreshing to see the amount of public domain artwork on this site.
Agreed. I used to be a big fan of the GPL until I realized what it implied... and I didn't like those implications so I sought out licensing alternatives and found the BSD/ZLib licenses sufficient for software and CC licensing sufficient for artwork. Plus, they're all compatible and none of them forces an entire project to be licensed the same way, just the original work and derivatives (for the most part).
If you look closer, I think you'll find that the CC licenses are a bit more problematic than you give them credit for, especially issues of interpretation of what CC-By really requires. I think they're the best option available for now, but they won't always be.
This needs 45 degree angles too