I'm well aware of the fact, and I've found that a lot of artists on here have been noticing this fact and have been rethinking the idea to use CC-BY-SA because of it. Several other people have pointed out the flaw in the fact that the FAQ is heavily misleading in that regard, and the one concern I have is people releasing their assets under CC-BY-SA thinking that it forces developers to share the source code of any project they include the assets in.
And either way, neither CC-BY nor CC-BY-SA say you can't sell anything with the content in it. In fact, you could actually sell the assets directly if you wanted to, TECHNICALLY its legal, but the assets are already available online for free anyway so its really pointless. And that is the problem if the FAQ is correct; its kinda pointless trying to sell a game if the source code is freely available online.
I'm still trying to avoid some -SA assets, but for the most part I'm not really too worried about it anymore. Mainly because I REALLY want to use LPC sprites.
Granted, my idea for trying to make money off of my games is get my games on as many platforms as possible for free, then provide a subscription service for cloud save files. In other words, you can play for free, but for a monthly subscription you can just login and load your save file on any available platform instead of the save files being restricted to just one at a time. So you could jump from the PC to console if you wanted, or take it on your phone on the go.
I would be sharing part of my source code (namely the engine) as open source anyway, though the full game I wouldn't want to be open source.
Sharm, just wanted to add something else. I meant no disrespect or anything. I actually thought I commented earlier on this about how great of a job you did on the sprites and how useful it is having multiple styles of sprites for users to be able to choose from.
Then I saw a comment by Will where he made remarks about a way to improve it a bit and that's where I went and commented on how I enjoy the collaborative effort I keep seeing on OGA. Not everything is collaborative, but I have seen several things that are and the whole site itself could be considered a collaborative effort to provide assets for usage in games in general as well.
I later checked back, though, and noticed that I didn't actually post that first comment. I must've been thinking about a comment I made on another asset or perhaps I started writing a comment but forgot to. Sorry about that! You did a really great job on this and its appreciated. ^^
Some people make assets or a tileset of some sort. Other people add onto the tileset or help out a bit by providing pre-packaged assets for a specific program and keep on extending off on it. LPC is probably the best example (although that was designed to be collaborative), but I've seen other assets being extended or repackaged by other people.
Sorry, I wasn't implying that the sprites above were made by multiple people. I just meant the idea of other people helping improve existing assets. I saw the repacks that Will did and that was helpful, and comments by other people offering suggestions to improve a certain part of an asset; that's collaboration as well (even if they didn't necessarily work directly together on it).
EDIT: Hmm, I thought I commented on this earlier. Sorry about that, I think that this tileset is great. I love all the variety I'm seeing on OGA. Nice work, Sharm!
Any of the LPC sprites are; they're all released under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.
There's some confusion about the "SA" part about the license, but the license makes it pretty clear overall; if you make a derivative of an "SA" asset and want to release it online (or show it publicly) it must be released under the same SA license.
The confusion stems from what a derivative is, but I don't get why this is considered as such. I've read online a bunch and Will on here agrees with me; a derivative work only applies to directly extending or modifying the asset itself.
Putting an "SA" asset into a program, game, or any other kind of application does NOT make that game a derivative. You just need to specify that the assets are released under a different license as the source code.
And yes, the "BY" part of the CC forces you to attribute the original artist(s) in the way they specify. Oftentimes this also requires you to link back to a website; I think LPC requires you to link back to OpenGameArt.
If you use CC-BY assets in a commercial game and do not attribute them properly, it is illegal. If you use CC-SA assets in a commercial game and create derivative works of them but do not release them in the same license (if its CC-BY-SA for example, it must be released under CC-BY-SA), it is also illegal, regardless of whether its attributed or not.
I can provide an example of how attribution would look like if you want. Unfortunately, this whole dilemma has caused much confusion and has caused a ton of users not to use -SA assets at all. I originally got confused by this as well, but I'm not afraid of using -SA assets anymore.
Now, on the other hand, if the assets have things like -NC or -ND, that's a different story. I don't think OGA allows those types, though. -NC means non-commercial, so no commercial usage whatsoever. -ND means no derivatives. You can make a derivative if you want, but you can't release it publicly. Again, though, I don't think OGA has these licenses.
^ I JUST noticed that myself. I've been playing around with this and its awesome, though I had to fix that qurik first.
The tileset is just recompiled LPC terrain, but what's awesome is that its got all the Terrains pre-configured. I didn't even know Terrain worked that way in Tiled and its awesome. This is the best pack of the LPC terrains I've seen so far because of the fact that its got a pre-configured Tiled tileset.
Oh, and on another note... Although I don't have much yet, and most of my assets will be modifications to LPC sprites (the only thing I have up was some LPC mods I made Guarav actually posted up here before I joined myself):
I waive the anti-drm clause in all assets I have legal right to on OpenGameArt.org released under any form of Creative Commons license or GNU General Public License unless explicitly stated otherwise in the asset listing.
As others have stated, I hate DRM, but anything I'd make I'd want to be able to put on as many devices as I possibly could, and I'm sure other people would want to as well.
I'm well aware of the fact, and I've found that a lot of artists on here have been noticing this fact and have been rethinking the idea to use CC-BY-SA because of it. Several other people have pointed out the flaw in the fact that the FAQ is heavily misleading in that regard, and the one concern I have is people releasing their assets under CC-BY-SA thinking that it forces developers to share the source code of any project they include the assets in.
And either way, neither CC-BY nor CC-BY-SA say you can't sell anything with the content in it. In fact, you could actually sell the assets directly if you wanted to, TECHNICALLY its legal, but the assets are already available online for free anyway so its really pointless. And that is the problem if the FAQ is correct; its kinda pointless trying to sell a game if the source code is freely available online.
I'm still trying to avoid some -SA assets, but for the most part I'm not really too worried about it anymore. Mainly because I REALLY want to use LPC sprites.
Granted, my idea for trying to make money off of my games is get my games on as many platforms as possible for free, then provide a subscription service for cloud save files. In other words, you can play for free, but for a monthly subscription you can just login and load your save file on any available platform instead of the save files being restricted to just one at a time. So you could jump from the PC to console if you wanted, or take it on your phone on the go.
I would be sharing part of my source code (namely the engine) as open source anyway, though the full game I wouldn't want to be open source.
This looks pretty cool. Don't know if I can use it for anything but it looks neat.
Sorry about that! I wasn't trying to imply that at all, that's why I went and added another reply to clarify. :P
Sharm, just wanted to add something else. I meant no disrespect or anything. I actually thought I commented earlier on this about how great of a job you did on the sprites and how useful it is having multiple styles of sprites for users to be able to choose from.
Then I saw a comment by Will where he made remarks about a way to improve it a bit and that's where I went and commented on how I enjoy the collaborative effort I keep seeing on OGA. Not everything is collaborative, but I have seen several things that are and the whole site itself could be considered a collaborative effort to provide assets for usage in games in general as well.
I later checked back, though, and noticed that I didn't actually post that first comment. I must've been thinking about a comment I made on another asset or perhaps I started writing a comment but forgot to. Sorry about that! You did a really great job on this and its appreciated. ^^
Some people make assets or a tileset of some sort. Other people add onto the tileset or help out a bit by providing pre-packaged assets for a specific program and keep on extending off on it. LPC is probably the best example (although that was designed to be collaborative), but I've seen other assets being extended or repackaged by other people.
Sorry, I wasn't implying that the sprites above were made by multiple people. I just meant the idea of other people helping improve existing assets. I saw the repacks that Will did and that was helpful, and comments by other people offering suggestions to improve a certain part of an asset; that's collaboration as well (even if they didn't necessarily work directly together on it).
EDIT: Hmm, I thought I commented on this earlier. Sorry about that, I think that this tileset is great. I love all the variety I'm seeing on OGA. Nice work, Sharm!
I love this collaborative effort; I want to do more stuff here on OGA! ^^
Any of the LPC sprites are; they're all released under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.
There's some confusion about the "SA" part about the license, but the license makes it pretty clear overall; if you make a derivative of an "SA" asset and want to release it online (or show it publicly) it must be released under the same SA license.
The confusion stems from what a derivative is, but I don't get why this is considered as such. I've read online a bunch and Will on here agrees with me; a derivative work only applies to directly extending or modifying the asset itself.
Putting an "SA" asset into a program, game, or any other kind of application does NOT make that game a derivative. You just need to specify that the assets are released under a different license as the source code.
And yes, the "BY" part of the CC forces you to attribute the original artist(s) in the way they specify. Oftentimes this also requires you to link back to a website; I think LPC requires you to link back to OpenGameArt.
If you use CC-BY assets in a commercial game and do not attribute them properly, it is illegal. If you use CC-SA assets in a commercial game and create derivative works of them but do not release them in the same license (if its CC-BY-SA for example, it must be released under CC-BY-SA), it is also illegal, regardless of whether its attributed or not.
I can provide an example of how attribution would look like if you want. Unfortunately, this whole dilemma has caused much confusion and has caused a ton of users not to use -SA assets at all. I originally got confused by this as well, but I'm not afraid of using -SA assets anymore.
Now, on the other hand, if the assets have things like -NC or -ND, that's a different story. I don't think OGA allows those types, though. -NC means non-commercial, so no commercial usage whatsoever. -ND means no derivatives. You can make a derivative if you want, but you can't release it publicly. Again, though, I don't think OGA has these licenses.
Can definitely use this for my snowfields and snowy village areas! ^^
^ I JUST noticed that myself. I've been playing around with this and its awesome, though I had to fix that qurik first.
The tileset is just recompiled LPC terrain, but what's awesome is that its got all the Terrains pre-configured. I didn't even know Terrain worked that way in Tiled and its awesome. This is the best pack of the LPC terrains I've seen so far because of the fact that its got a pre-configured Tiled tileset.
Oh, and on another note... Although I don't have much yet, and most of my assets will be modifications to LPC sprites (the only thing I have up was some LPC mods I made Guarav actually posted up here before I joined myself):
I waive the anti-drm clause in all assets I have legal right to on OpenGameArt.org released under any form of Creative Commons license or GNU General Public License unless explicitly stated otherwise in the asset listing.
As others have stated, I hate DRM, but anything I'd make I'd want to be able to put on as many devices as I possibly could, and I'm sure other people would want to as well.
Pages