@Aisen: It's CC0, which is basically the same as public domain. You don't need to ask permission. We'd definitely be interested in the link to your game when you're done though. :)
Anyone knows how to actually interpret CC BY-SA? I have read lots of discussions about this but not found any really good answer. If I use an image licensed under CC BY-SA and I do not change the image, just use it in e.g. a game. Do i really need to release the complete game source code as open under CC BY-SA?
Technically no, but I would encourage you to contact the artist and ask what their preference is.
I am personally about 30% done, and that's more than anyone else. Some of the judges haven't done anything yet, and we may need to exclude them from the process to make sure we can do things in a timely fashion.
I'm probably going to have to withdraw my time estimate at this point, since it's too heavily dependent on other people.
Just because there is a grey area doesn't mean that you can't avoid it. If a change is trivial, then it's probably not enough. Saving as a jpeg isn't a substantial change.
This isn't a lawyer opinion, but one way you might think of it is the amount of effort it takes to transform something. If you can do it in three seconds, it's probably not a substantial change, unless that three seconds is spent scribbling all over the image so that it's unrecognizeable. Saving as a jpeg or changing a single pixel don't count, because it's still virtually identical to the original work.
Turning a non-tiling texture into a tiling one, on the other hand, is a substantial change. It requires effort, and it makes the work different and also usable for something where it wasn't usable in the past.
Edit: One other note: The law is interpreted by people, not computers. If you're trying to think of this in a programmatic way (that is, can I run it through a comparison algorithm and determine if a change is 'substantial') then you're going to get nowhere. Imagine you're a judge in court examining two works. You aren't all that knowledgeable about computers -- your job is just to look at two works and determine whether they're similar. If you're annoyed at the person who made the derivative work because it doesn't look any different, then the changes aren't substantial. If you're annoyed at the author for bringing the case into court because the two works are clearly different, then it's substantial. :)
Someone pinged me and asked me to chime in on this, so here's my honest opinion.
The Liberated Pixel Cup raised just over $10k, and it had the support of the Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation, along with a lot of good press. Consequently, I don't think it's realistic to raise $9000 for this, and it's not something I really want to spearhead (plus, when you only get a fraction of what you wanted to raise, things get complicated).
If someone else decides to take charge of raising the money, I'd be happy to link to it on the OGA blog.
On the other hand, everyone has the rights to sell GPLed software, so I don't see where that's a problem. THe question is whether there would be something in Steam's license that would conflict with the requirements of the GPL.
I humbly submit to you:
The Adventure Begins
@Charles Stover: Sorry I missed this message. I'm sure it's way too late now, but the link doesn't need to be clickable.
@Aisen: It's CC0, which is basically the same as public domain. You don't need to ask permission. We'd definitely be interested in the link to your game when you're done though. :)
Anyone knows how to actually interpret CC BY-SA? I have read lots of discussions about this but not found any really good answer. If I use an image licensed under CC BY-SA and I do not change the image, just use it in e.g. a game. Do i really need to release the complete game source code as open under CC BY-SA?
Technically no, but I would encourage you to contact the artist and ask what their preference is.
Change the texture a bit and you'll have a potato generator. ;)
Nice work!
I am personally about 30% done, and that's more than anyone else. Some of the judges haven't done anything yet, and we may need to exclude them from the process to make sure we can do things in a timely fashion.
I'm probably going to have to withdraw my time estimate at this point, since it's too heavily dependent on other people.
You're overthinking it.
Just because there is a grey area doesn't mean that you can't avoid it. If a change is trivial, then it's probably not enough. Saving as a jpeg isn't a substantial change.
This isn't a lawyer opinion, but one way you might think of it is the amount of effort it takes to transform something. If you can do it in three seconds, it's probably not a substantial change, unless that three seconds is spent scribbling all over the image so that it's unrecognizeable. Saving as a jpeg or changing a single pixel don't count, because it's still virtually identical to the original work.
Turning a non-tiling texture into a tiling one, on the other hand, is a substantial change. It requires effort, and it makes the work different and also usable for something where it wasn't usable in the past.
Edit: One other note: The law is interpreted by people, not computers. If you're trying to think of this in a programmatic way (that is, can I run it through a comparison algorithm and determine if a change is 'substantial') then you're going to get nowhere. Imagine you're a judge in court examining two works. You aren't all that knowledgeable about computers -- your job is just to look at two works and determine whether they're similar. If you're annoyed at the person who made the derivative work because it doesn't look any different, then the changes aren't substantial. If you're annoyed at the author for bringing the case into court because the two works are clearly different, then it's substantial. :)
Someone pinged me and asked me to chime in on this, so here's my honest opinion.
The Liberated Pixel Cup raised just over $10k, and it had the support of the Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation, along with a lot of good press. Consequently, I don't think it's realistic to raise $9000 for this, and it's not something I really want to spearhead (plus, when you only get a fraction of what you wanted to raise, things get complicated).
If someone else decides to take charge of raising the money, I'd be happy to link to it on the OGA blog.
On the other hand, everyone has the rights to sell GPLed software, so I don't see where that's a problem. THe question is whether there would be something in Steam's license that would conflict with the requirements of the GPL.
Thanks. For some reason, firefox doesn't highlight misspellings in the rich text widget.
Pages