Not that I know of, only thing I can say to this is the trash answer "we'll see"

It sure would be good to keep the site and our licensing up to date

Yeah, I had inquired about this on an earlier thread somewheres.

Aside from the advantages of cc-4.0 vs 3.0, the issue I see is that we've started to see submissions marked as cc-by-3.0 with a note stating the license is really cc-by-4.0.   It doesn't quite seem fair to flag submissions for this when 4.0 is not provided as an option, but at the same time, it's not good for the long term health of the site to have things marked as one license but 'noted' as another.

No worries, i think it might have just been in the comments for a submission and not a proper forum topic.  And at any rate, repeatedly raising an issue is the best way to get it addressed ;)

As for the submissions, I can't recall which was the first I saw do this, but I was able to find a few just literally searching for '4.0'.   Here's an example:

http://opengameart.org/content/toens-medieval-strategy-sprite-pack-v10-1...

It's fantastic submission and you'd hate to see it pulled on a technicality but at the same time, in the bigger picture it's really critical that the works on here be licensed by the selected license(s), otherwise searching by license will be useless and everyone will just have to manually read the notes field from each submission to understand the terms for it's use.

" And at any rate, repeatedly raising an issue is the best way to get it addressed"

I'd guess contacting Bart directly (if possible) would be good as well if you haven't tried already.

Alas I've been pretty busy so I haven't been keeping up on things around here at all, but it's definitely in his wheelhouse.

Thanks for saying that capbros. I better read the difference of CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY SA 4.0 opposed to the 3.0'

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice!

If you are the sole author of a work (it is not derived from a copyrighted asset), there should be no fundamental issue with marking the submission as OGA-BY 3 (which allows anyone to relicense to CC-BY-3.0), and also dual licensing by marking it as CC-BY-3.0 (because CC allows re-release as later version of CC), AND triple licensing it by commenting with the submission that it's CC-BY-4.0...

Sole authors of works licensed as CC-BY-4.0 can relicense their own (non derivative) work as CC-BY-3.0.  This isn't true of other people's stuff. I can't grab a CC-BY-4.0 asset off of another site and post it here as being CC-BY-3.0.

Perhaps instead of asset submitters needing to set all this manually, display that any OGA-BY 3 asset is 'available under alternate license' and show CC-BY options.

Maybe always require asset submissions (that are not OGA-BY 3) to check ALL CC licenses they desire and use the most-free 'oldest' license as the 'main' one.

Idea: Optionally select to bundle a copy of the (plain text) license(s) of the thing you are downloading with the download.

@cron:

Well, the copyright holder can always license and re-license a work however they like (again provided there are not entanglements with other works (eg. a derivative of a CC-SA-BY work)).

They can freely offer the work under whatever terms the want, and can offer it under different licenses and allow users to select the license they wish to use it under.

What they cannot do is retroactively rescind a license once they have released the work under those terms.  They don't have to continue to personally distribute the work under the license, but they can't sue or otherwise go after people for using the work under it's terms.   Meaning, you can't release a work as CC-BY-3.0 one day, change your mind, switch it to CC-BY-SA and then sue someone who in good faith obtained to work under CC-BY-3.0 and used it under those terms.

Other than that, the original author/copyright holder, really has carte-blanche to do what they like.

As for 'upgrading', 'downgrading', etc. licenses from one to another, unless there is absolutely crystal clear language in the license itself which allows for transmutating itself (as with some GPL licenses), I'm very wary of such schemes.  Even very liberal licenses like the MIT license, don't allow the text of the license itself to be altered or removed from a distribution, meaning you can add new terms if you like, but you can never fully convert the license to somethig else (unless that something happens to begin with the identical text from the MIT license) and you certainly can't simply replace the license with something deemed 'compatible'.

> Idea: Optionally select to bundle a copy of the (plain text) license(s) of the thing you are downloading with the download.

Yes!  This is my holy grail idea for clarifying license stuff on OGA.  I think every download should be a bundle of the work plus a readme with the author's name, available licenses and attribution instructions and a plain text copy of each available license.  

However, I must admit that in addition to backend work that would be required to make this work, there have been a few use cases raised where this behavior would be annoying:

 http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/on-the-importance-of-citable-license-g...

Although, reading your post just now, I had another brainstorm, instead of archiving the work with the license and all that, maybe an OK 2nd best solution would be just to roll the info into the filename.   Again, a 2nd best solution, but I could still see it being useful.

I guess the format would be something like:  imagename.username.license(...).file_extension

ex.

instead of 'reallycoolsprites.png'

the site could serve up:

reallycoolsprites.capbros.OGA-BY-3.0.GPL-2.0.png

Again, not the cleanest solution in the world, but it might work better than what we have now (aka nothing). 

I think you're secretly Saul Goodman.

@capbros yes I had briefly considered that as well, however now I think a better solution might be to have a separate page that tracks your downloads (within the last 30 days?) and individual downloads would be selected to generate a downloadable manifest of the assets. Think that'd work?