OGA and License FAQ Update/Changes
@bart: This came up in anther discussion but I thought I'd post it as it's own thing both in the hopes of getting it noticed and because it is properly it's own subject anyway.
I also know this topic has been kicked around a little before, so apologies in advance for also raising a dead horse...
Anyway, was wondering if there was anything we could do to better publicize the anti-DRM properties of the CC-BY and CC-SA. Not to discredit the license, but just to make sure submitters understand the license and don't choose it wanting the attribution part but not realizing the anti-DRM is in there.
A thought eugeneloza had on the subject was to provide some kind of basic faq describing the available licenses in layman's terms. This could be linked above/in the license selection check box on the submission form.
I notice there is a breakdown of the licenses in the general site faq:
http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary
But:
a) it is pitched a bit more toward developers/users than artists/submitters
b) it isn't linked anywhere from the art submission form (which has just links to the more detailed descriptions of each license)
c) it doesn't mention the OGA-BY license
d) it also doesn't mention the anti-DRM bits of CC-BY/SA licenses
In fact, the 'CC-BY' bit says 'Provided the author is properly credited, it is generally safe to use this content in a commercial work.' Which, if I didn't know better, I would assume meant CC-BY stuff was fine to use on DRM'd platforms. Actually, as a developer, this is what I assumed when I first discovered OGA based on that faq as well as the general license overview provided by the creative commons site. It wasn't until I saw a forum post on the topic that I understood that the 'technical measures' bit was referring to DRM. I guess that's one reason I'm sensitive to this subject, I've made the same mistake just from the other side.
Well, any interest in updating the site FAQ to include some mention of the DRM stuff? What about a more submitter friendly version? (Something like 'Choosing the license that's right for you...') Or a link from the submission form to a general license faq?
I'm new, and I started learning with the licenses. I thought I had a decent grip on them from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/, but I'm currently only interested in free platforms and self-publishing, so I missed it entirely ["technological measures" -- uh, whatever] until I caught on to the topics here.
I don't know anything about DRM, but if I can submit my work as free assets and possibly pick up some interest [and the inspiration to hone my skills and possibly do commissioned work, woo!], that's gonna be my plan.
I like the versatility and ubiquity of the CC license, but I'm not sure it was designed for these applications, particularly for the ways I hope to interact with the communities. Steam [or iOS or whatever], or a Steam dev, won't OWN my pixels if someone makes a Steam game with them on an OGA license, right? Right.
@Lz_erk: Well, that depends on what you mean by 'own' ;)
But generally speaking, no. OGA-BY 3.0 is identical to CC-BY 3.0 with the sole exception that the 'technical measures' clause has been removed.
If you release something as OGA-BY and someone uses them for a game they will not 'own' the pixels and they still must give credit to you as their creator. However, they will 'own' the pixels in the sense that they can redistribute them freely (and charge money for doing so) as part of their project. Still, again, they must give you credit and they cannot prevent you from redistributing the pixels as you see fit.
OGA-BY does lack a 'share alike' clause (CC-SA), meaning someone who creates derivative/new work from yours does not have to redistibute it publically, though they must still credit you as a contributing artist.
There is also a legitimate debate about whether distributing works in DRM'd systems 'removes' works from the public sphere or commons. Ex. suppose the OGA site disappears tomorrow and your hard drive crashes and you lose all backups of your work at the same time. Now suppose a dev is using your OGA-BY art in a game on a DRM'd platform. The dev is under no obligation to distribute the work sans DRM, so now your work is only available as a 'private' good. Kind of an extreme example, but hopefully it illustrates the idea (and it's actually not that far-fetched if you take a longer term view, like what about 10 years from now? 20 years from now? 50 years from now? etc). This is the sort of scenario that the 'technical measures' clause is meant to prevent. The idea is to ensure that the work will always stay 'free' or 'open'.
That's at least how I understand the point of the 'technical measures' clause. Since OGA-BY doesn't include this clause, choosing between CC-BY and OGA-BY is kind of a trade-off between ensuring the that work is forever free and making sure that it is maximally useful in today's world. Well, maybe others would put it differently, that's just my one line summary for you. ;)
Getting back to the original topic, you highlight /exactly/ the problem I see with how the licenses are presented on OGA. It's just not immediately obvious that 'technical measures' means 'no DRM', so it's too easy/common for artists to select CC-BY without realizing it restricts their work from being used on most commercial platforms today.
@bart: I know you are a busy guy, but no thoughts on how/if to address this issue?
https://withthelove.itch.io/
It would make sense for the FAQ to also quote the relevant part from CC's own summary: "No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits."
The reason why it says technological measures and not DRM is because the former is the term used by Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, however there is a link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Application_of_effecti... which mentions this includes DRM and explains it (and personally I'd say that "technological measure that restricts..." is clearer than DRM because that's the explanation - I only know that DRM is a technological measure that restricts what people can do, it's interesting that people know what the acronym means, but get confused by the explanation of the acronym...). This information or the link could also be put in the FAQ.
There used to be a problem that the CC summaries said nothing on this, but now they're pretty clear.
OGA-BY also removes the clauses:
"You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work."
Which makes sense - even for a game without DRM, the game could just as well have a licence saying people weren't allowed to distribute any of the context (even if it was someone else's OGA-BY content). So in capbros's example of this website disappearing, even though someone could technically get hold of the content from such a game, they wouldn't have legal rights to redistibute that version of it.
Another example might be someone taking all the OGA-BY art on this site, and putting it on their own site under a more restrictive licence. I don't think any way is right - this is just the old copyleft or GPL vs BSD debate in a different form.
“meaning someone who creates derivative/new work from yours does not have to redistibute it publically,”
No free license requires you do this. This is a common misconception on copyleft licenses; you do not have to release anything. However, if you do, you must release it under the same license.
@mdwh:
> There used to be a problem that the CC summaries said nothing on this, but now they're pretty clear.
Clear in that they mention the 'technical measures' clause, not clear in that it's still easy to miss the fact that this covers some/most DRM systems.
I do agree that 'technical measures' is in a sense a better term, it's broader and encapsulates the idea better. But, as Lz_erk's post demonstrates, it's just a fact that people don't always make the leap from this term to DRM.
I think an astrix or otherwise with a call out the the DRM restriction and link to the 'Application of effective technical measures...' (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Application_of_effecti...) would be a great addition to the OGA FAQ.
@bart: no interest in such a change?
@Calinou: Sorry, yes you are correct. If you keep the derivative work private you do not have do anything with it. It's only if you release it publically as part of a game or otherwise, that you must make it available under the same license.
https://withthelove.itch.io/
@bart: no comment on this idea?
ps
if you are on vacay or just sick of talking about license stuff, I understand and sorry in advance for being a pest, but do I have warn you I plan to keep pinging here until I get a reply ;)
https://withthelove.itch.io/
@all: moving this thread to the 'feedback' forum, since that is the proper place for it, sorry for not realizing that in the first place.
https://withthelove.itch.io/