Occupational icons
Saturday, October 7, 2023 - 17:59
Art Type:
License(s):
Collections:
Share Icons:
Preview:
A series of occupational character icons I made for a game project about ten years ago.
Derived from this: http://pousse.rapiere.free.fr/tome/tiles/AngbandTk/tome-angbandtkmisctil...
Copyright/Attribution Notice:
"Tiles have been drawn by David E. Gervais, and are published under the Creative Commons licence. You are free to to copy, distribute and transmit those tiles as long as you credit David Gervais as their creator."
File(s):
icons.zip 24.4 Kb [31 download(s)]
Comments
If these are derived from CC-BY 3.0 content, are you able to license them CC-BY 4.0?EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Tweaked it.
Adaptations can be 4.0, but you would still need to state that the base is 3.0 licensed.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines#Upgrading_f...
Nice! Good find, Baŝto. That answers my question.
@Technopeasant: these are certainly adaptations, so if you'd still prefer CC-BY 4.0, you can change it back with the addition of specifying the original was CC-BY 3.0 in the attribution notice section.
I was honestly just ticking the first CC-BY box I saw. If anything I wonder if I am able to license my derivative works down as CC0 if I attribute Gervais as the originator, but I am unsure if that is possible. What is the exact differnece between CC-BY-SA and CC-BY in this respect?
CC-BY-SA requires derivatives to have the same license. CC-BY doesn't, but the basis still stays CC-BY and doesn’t allow additional restrictions. CC-BY explicitly allows to put derivatives under CC-BY-SA since that would be additional restrictions otherwise. You probably can put your modifications under cc0, but that would be pointless as that wouldn't really give any additional freedoms as the base still is CC-BY. Users would need to read and follow the Attribution Notice fineprint, which is not really expected for cc0 and not what people are looking for that search for cc0 assets.
OGA's interface doesn't support assets well that have different licenses to different parts of it. It somewhat expects that everything has the same license. You can pick multiple licenses, but that is understood as dual-licensing, which means that one of the licenses can be picked and not that all apply at the same time.
^ Correct. And the inability to specify different licenses for different parts is intentional; Having multiple licenses that people must follow for a single submission promotes incorrect adherence more than it promotes freedom. It is far less confusing to package separately licensed content in separate submissions. Even if you could license derivatives of CC-BY as CC0, it wouldn't be permitted on OGA because it inadvetently encourages users to fail to properly attribute assets.
Note that the original issue above is not about CC-BY-SA vs CC-BY. It was about CC-BY 3.0 vs CC-BY 4.0. Were you asking about the differences between version 3 and 4 of CC-BY?
My question was if the attribution requirement is inherited in perpetuity, which Baŝto's explanation seems to imply.
The amount of perpetuity is different. If you choose a different license for your modifications somebody could theoretically remove the base asset and replace it. In that case they wouldn't need to follow the license of the base any longer. With cc by-sa it would still be under by-sa in that case.
That rarely gets done and is probably even harder with artwork than with software, but FLOSS Open 3D Engine is a prominent example that did such a thing with software. They licensed CryEngine, modified it and built stuff around it to make it into freeware Amazon Lumberyard. Then they replaced the CryEngine stuff and released under MIT/Apache dual-license.
So, for example, if someone uses a CC BY asset in a GPL program, and somoneone uses it in another GPL program they would stil need to attribute the original CC BY author? In effect the attribution clause is viral?