I know this is off-topic, but there's Ouya game bundles? If you're saying that CC-BY-NC licensed artwork isn't allowed in Ouya games, well then I guess I've got some games to cancel/move to PC (which I'm hoping is not the case, as I really wish to finish at least one Ouya game).

Back on topic - Well, I would suppose that would prevent such games from being distributed as such (and I can see it happening, though I would hope that such a project would be willing to talk to the copyright holders), but AFAIK Linux distros being sold are few and far between (this of course doesn't mean that such licensing should be ignored, even for a non-profit open source project). Twas simply pointing out that CC-BY-NC and GPL are both restrictive in their own ways. It still would be very nice for such licenses to be allowed (again, I do have a lot of art that I would like to submit here, but cannot, due to being artwork of one of my characters, which will remain under CC-BY-NC in the forseeable future), but I am understanding if it isn't in OGA's interest to do so.

My opinion still stands on all points though, and I really hope that removing CC0/Public Domain doesn't even come into consideration, as there's a lot of good art under those licenses, and to my knowledge, OGA is the best place for people to find such art. Words cannot express how bad the removal or relicensing of all said artwork would be.

"As for licenses being removed, I most certainly would not like that one bit, especially since one of the ones that were brought up was the CC0/Public Domain license"

...What? I don't think the removal of CC0 was ever considered. It might have been suggested by a troll, but I think the sun will burn out before CC0 is removed from OGA. Actually, I can't seem to find where it was suggested ANY license be removed. I see where people were saying some assets should be removed because of a licensing conflict, but not any place where the license itself was the target of removal.

GravityGames, are you referencing a recent discussion? Can you point me to the comments about license removal? I'm curious but I'm not finding anything on it.

>I know this is off-topic, but there's Ouya game bundles? 

I mean that developers of Ouya can't legally offer CC-BY-NC games precompiled and downloadable from their site, as that would conflict with license. I.e. they do that to increase the value of their console and gain profit.

>Words cannot express how bad the removal or relicensing of all said artwork would be.

Technically Public Domain allows relicensing to CC-BY. I've done that and it angered a few people.

@MedicineStorm It wasn't so much suggested as brought up as something that could happen. By Nikita actually...

"Judging from what Clint said (i.e. "no hair splitting"), OGA has underlaying politics of promoting Creative Commons as the single right way. It would likely be the other way around, with GPL and Public Domain being removed at some point,"

I doubt he was suggesting the removal, rather pointing out that it could happen, and (if I understand correctly) would likely happen before an "other" category would be added to OGA.

@Nikita_Sadkov

>I mean that developers of Ouya can't legally offer CC-BY-NC games precompiled and downloadable from their site, as that would conflict with license. I.e. they do that to increase the value of their console and gain profit.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "can't legally offer". Do you mean that they can't be on the Ouya store or that Ouya can't use images from the game to promote their console unless they got permission from the original artist of the game's graphics?

> Technically Public Domain allows relicensing to CC-BY. I've done that and it angered a few people.

Which is exactly what I consider bad. I'd rather have the original completely free work than an unedited relicensed work, and I'm sure others would as well. I release my tilesets under CC0 for people to edit them and share their contributions, or for people to use them in projects without fear, and I'd assume that a similar thought process goes on for most people who also use CC0 (that or it's so old and under your standards that it's not really worth licensing under other licenses). Sure, there's no way to stop this from happening, but CC-BY has a lot of controversy over what counts as attribution, so I've pretty much just made attribution optional. Is it the best solution, no, but every system gets abused by someone.

>I don't quite understand what you mean by "can't legally offer". Do you mean that they can't be on the Ouya store or that Ouya can't use images from the game to promote their console unless they got permission from the original artist of the game's graphics?

They can't touch them in anyway, as long as they work for some company.

@GravityGames: Oh. I see. Yeah, I'm guessing that was just hyperbole on Nikita's part(?)

Removal of CC0 is not going to happen. You can be pretty sure the removal of any other licence is super-unlikely as well.

License changes are unlikely to happen right now. NC licenses are not Free and Open, and this site does cater to Open games (as you might suspect from the title).

As an Admin I probably can update static FAQs etc, but that's definitely Bart K's domian.

We can as a community propose new FAQ language and then send them to Bart K for permanent update.

What about GFDL?

For example, for promotional reasons GSC Game World has released some screenshots under GFDL. One of them (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arsenal_Pripyat.jpeg) contains about 100 items of art, which can be easily scavenged. GFDL is basically equivalent of CC-BY-SA

Both "free" and "open source" licences (as defined by the FSF and OSI) allow commercial distribution. However, this is nothing to do with copyleft or releasing code - BSD code for example can be used in closed source applications. None of the licences on this site for art require you to release source code. The reason the licences allow commercial use is not because people think all games should be GPL.

Consider that non commercial licences don't just prevent use in commercial games, but also Open Source games (which are intended to allow commercial redistribution). So what is such art good for? I guess for freeware games, but it cuts out a lot of potential use. One of the problems with non commercial licences is that they are so ill defined, e.g., what about distributing on a web site with ads or a commercial magazine cover CD? And a German court interpreted it to rule out use even by a non commercial radio station ( https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says... ).

Is the GPL more restrictive than non commercial licences? The GPL art can be used for open source, freeware and commercial games, but the "source form" of the art must be provided. Maybe that's a restriction for some commercial uses, though only if they want to take things for free and not give anything back. The idea behind copyleft is that it reduces some freedom for distributors in order to preserve freedoms for end users. Meanwhile non commercial art can't be used at all for any commercial games, nor open source either, so that seems much more restrictive.

Yes there'd be a lot more art if we allowed nc licences, and it'd all be useless for commercial and open source games.

"Technically Public Domain allows relicensing to CC-BY. I've done that and it angered a few people."

Also note in the US, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. ruled that public domain copies can't be protected by copyright.