In this case CC0 is not an option. CC0 removes all copyright claims, which means that people can and are allowed to upload it anywhere they like.

I believe CC-BY could be a good license. CC-BY allows someone to use your art, but only if appropriate credit is given to the original author.

CC-BY-SA is also a license that also fits your description quite well. This is basically same as CC-BY, but the one who uses art licensed under CC-BY-SA has to release any deviations of said art under the same license.

This is my understanding of these licenses. Note that I have never read the GPL terms of use.

CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

CC-BY-SA: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

@Mornedil:  I don't think there are any licenses on this site that prevent a work from being re-uploaded somewhere else.  You are thinking of something like 'you can do what you want, but you can't re-distribute the work as part of another collection'?   The idea being, take my work, do something productive with it, but don't just bundle it with a bunch of other free assets, slap it on a CD and try to charge $9.99 for it.  I see riders like that on custom font licenses alot, but none of the big 'free' licenses have stuff like that in there. :(

CC-BY does have the benefit of at least requiring that you be credited for the work, and CC-SA adds the provision that derivative works must be released under the same license.  But be aware that both those licenses have a restriction against distributing on platforms that use DRM.  OGA has added it's own OGA-BY to the mix which is basically CC-BY without the anti-DRM restriction in there.

Hello Mornedil,

Most people here use CC-BY. CC-SA has some bitter bytaste.

Indeed there are no restrictions to just take it and upload it somewhere else, however if someone does that he would need to give you attribution.

You may just add in your description that you dont want it to be uploadet somewhere else. However i am not sure if that would become part of the license and would be legally binding.

@Mornedil: Yeah, I think that would be a very popular license if somebody could write it.  I think the problem is turning 'Use but don't shamelessly exploit' into proper legalese. ;)

re: CC-BY, just be aware of the anti-DRM bit.  Lots of folks have chosen CC-BY without realizing that was in there, to the point where we're actually working on updating the Site FAQ/Submission guidelines to specifically say something about it.   So you've seen it, here is the current draft language for that:

CC-BY and CC-SA licenses include a clause prohibiting the use of additional "legal terms or technological measures (DRM) that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits".  In practice, this means artwork using this license may not be legally distributed on platforms that use any form of 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM).  Note that many popular game distribution networks do use DRM (ie. Apple iOS, Xbox Live, Sony PSN) and others may or may not use DRM depending on how a particular game is pacakged (ex. Steam, Google Android).  Please be aware of this when submitting work and/or choosing work to use in a project.

Again, OGA-BY-3.0 was specifically created by Bart to be CC-BY w/o the anti-DRM restriction.

I only mention this because you are specifcally asking about which license to choose and, again, many have missed this part of the CC-BY license in the past.

Whatever license you choose to go with is certainly cool with me, and I applaud you're community spirit, frankly you're aces in my book for sharing your hard work no matter what the license!  :)

ps

if you have any other thoughts/comments/suggestions on the site submissions guidelines and/or faq, you're welcome to contribute them to the discussion thread on improving them:

http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...

Being a new submitter who struggled choosing a license for you work, your perspective on the site docs would be very helpful to hear.

There aren't any such "Free" licences (by definition - such a licence wouldn't be considered "Free" or "Open"), and so none on this site that would allow this.

Creative Commons did once have such a licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling/1.0/ (which allowed commercial or non-commercial use but only for creative transformations); also https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ (which also permitted verbatim redistribution but only for non-commercial use). Creative Commons no longer recommend their usage (reasons given "Not compatible with any other CC license, inadequate demand").

One way to look at it though - if you're happy for people to use your work, does it matter if people also sell copies? Either they're adding value (e.g., consider how many Linux CDs have been sold with magazines), or they're not (in which case people can just as well download from here). There is also the problem that with games it can be unclear if something has been sufficiently transformed (e.g., suppose a model is being used in the game, but the 3D model is stored as a file without changes in the distributable archive).

I don't want people to re-upload my stuff though, unless of course they have modified it or they're using it as a part of their project.
But I don't want people to just download it from here, then purely just reuploading it somewhere else. 

Why exactly do you want this? As pointed out, there is no open licence that lets you do this, but more importantly, it seems like a fairly useless addition that can only limit the usefulness of your work.

If you're afraid of people uploading and taking credit for your work, having such a clause doesn't actually prevent them from doing that and taking credit for your work is just as disallowed under CC-BY.

Yeah, CC-SA seems way too demanding for whoever uses the models, as from what I understand they would need to release their whole project under the same licence?

I never understood the line of reasoning that leads to that conclusion. The licence applies to "derivatives" of the art, which under no sane definition of "derivative" applies to the source code of a project (but the definition of "adapted material" in the licence text is vague). You can always licence the art and the code separately (or even licence different pieces of code separately), which is probably a good thing to do anyway since the CC licences are not intended (or recommended) for source code and something like the GPL is not intended (or recommended) for art (and indeed makes little sense to me personally for that particular case).

CC-BY and CC-SA licenses include a clause prohibiting the use of additional "legal terms or technological measures (DRM) that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits".  In practice, this means artwork using this license may not be legally distributed on platforms that use any form of 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM).

What happens if you distribute the art separately, or give users the option of distributing the art from within the project? Prehaps that only counts as following the letter rather than the intent of the licence though. Even then, if you need to exploit a loop-hole like that it probably means there is something wrong with your choice of licence...

@Evert: 

> Why exactly do you want this?

I think the reasoning is pretty simple and understandable.   You want to share your work but you don't want to see it shamelessly exploited.  It's a real common clause to find in the font world where people frequently make money (or at least try to make money) distributing free fonts.  Seems a pretty natural request to me.

re: anti-DRM stuff

Yeah, GPL's thing is you must make the source available, NOT you can only distribute as source.   So it's fine to sell or distribute compiled binaries, it's not a problem as long as you make the source available somewhere.   I wish CC had a similar idea, you must make derivative work available sans DRM, not you can only distribute sans DRM.  As it is, I can't see using CC stuff in a commercial project unless I was exclusively distributing a DRM-free binary myself, as even if you put it out on what is a DRM-free platform today, all those distribution contracts reserve the right to change there end-user terms whenever they like, so there's no saying they might not turn on DRM tomorrow and then you're stuck.

You want to share your work but you don't want to see it shamelessly exploited.

Sure, that's natural. What I don't understand is how a non-repackaging clause helps that. You're right that they're somewhat common (not just for fonts, I've seen it for other stuff too), and I've never really understood what the actual benefit is. I understand it as a gut-reaction (and have put it on things I released in the past) but ultimately all it does is give you the illusion of extra protection while limiting your exposure.

Of course anyone who really wants such a clause is free to do so, but there is probably a concern that the clause is supposed to address that could be better or alternatively addressed in a different way, which is why I asked.

So it's fine to sell or distribute compiled binaries, it's not a problem as long as you make the source available somewhere.

My understanding is that this isn't quite enough: I must also be allowed to make changes I wish, recompile and run the software. This isn't a problem on a laptop or desktop machine (where you can develop and run stuff) and I don't think it's an issue on Android, because you're allowed to run random apps on your device if you enable the developer/debugging mode. Of course, iOS is different: you're not allowed to deploy custom binaries on iOS device, so there is still a conflict with the GPL there.

I wish CC had a similar idea, you must make derivative work available sans DRM, not you can only distribute sans DRM.

Indeed. I would think that that is actually the intent, but if it were then I would also expect it to have been corrected by now...

I understand that there is a technical loop-hole that allows for using CC content in a DRM'ed App: don't bundle the art with the App, but have the App download the content from a server after the App is installed. It sounds incredibly convoluted and fragile (introducing another point of failure) simply to get around a poorly-worded licence text...

>  I don't understand is how a non-repackaging clause helps that. 

I don't know, if it actually prevents or even just deters repackaging, then I guess it's useful.  Most the ones I've seen are a little too 'plain english' to think they'd actually hold up in court, so I think you're right, the protection they give is largely illusory.

re: cc vs DRM

Yeah, reading and re-reading the docs and FAQ on the Creative Commons site, I think it is literally meant as an anti-DRM measure.  I think they just don't like DRM and don't want to see Creative Commons works contribute to any platform that uses DRM.   It's a pretty understandable sentiment for sure (who likes DRM anyways?) but unfortunately for today (and the foreseeable future) it does mean the work can't be used on several gaming platforms. 

I think you already summed it up about using loop-holes to get around the restriction, if you're doing that, you're probably not using the right license. :(