It is taking all my will power not to put down my two active projects and do something with this set for the Spring OGA Game Jam.
Can I ask, how do you picture the game playing? It looks like a series of single screen challenges. Something like Donkey Kong or other classic arcade games.
PM me if you don't want to reveal your secrets publically. :)
Awesome! It's a great heart pendant to start with but the blue and red veins really send it over the top! It's somehow both really kiddie and really brutal at the same time! I love it! Thanks for sharing!
Yeah, I'll second congusbongus. I love the idea of an RPG populated by fellow OGAers, but you should probably seek written permission from each user before using their name.
TBH, a better, safer approach would be to use parody names. For example, for meidcinestorm you could use 'medicaltempest', for EmceeFlesher you could use 'MC Fresher', etc. etc.
That way it's clear to everyone (players, OGA users, etc.) that you're just having some fun and nothing is meant to seriously reflect anyone's character, personality, etc.
That also adds an extra layer of fun for players because they can play 'spot the OGA reference' with the NPC names.
There are not too many italic fonts on OGA so this is a great contribution.
Saturday, November 5, 2022 - 14:16
> we probably just have a different perspective
I think that's probably it.
> If I imagine answering such a question with the current text, I'm basically telling someone "look, just go understand the licenses," which feels less helpful to me than "you can use the art if you think about/address the following issues: A, B, C, D"
I don't think that's an entirely fair assesment. 'just go understand the licenses' would just be links to the raw license text. The proposed text provides a description of each license along with a short explanation of what that means for developers and for artists, so it's more like 'here's decription of each license and what it means, you decide what's best for you' which seems entirely fair and in keeping with the sites license agnostic policy.
I get the idea behind more conceptual dialogue, I just think it's better for spell things out as directly as possible. If we want to add a more long form discussion of the ins and outs of it all later in the doc (maybe under 'Can you talk more about the licenses and what they mean?' question) but starting with a basic, clear description of the license is going to be the most helpful approach, especially for new comers.
> "what is a derivative work"
Can we start with this:
* The section should clearly enunciate the known, well defined uses that make a derivative work (modifications, etc. etc + syncing sound with video)
It's easy to take that for granted when we get into our long disussions about copyright law, etc. etc. but truthhully, for a new comer, this is the most important thing to state. That is, what are the cases that for sure ceate a derivative work?
After that, however we want to phrase the 'everything else is ambiguous and unknown' part is fine. My only concern is that it be done in a way that is clear and doesn't unnecessarily bias readers towards or away from any particular license or licenses. To that end, I think we'll find that the less we say the better, but I could be wrong.
> If you want to be sure your art can be used in larger projects that are licensed under the GPL v3, choose CC-BY-SA 4.0; CC-BY-SA 4.0 is compatible with the GPL v3 (link) but also has terms that are more clearly applicable to art than GPL v3
This does seem like a point that's worth working in there somewhere.
Saturday, November 5, 2022 - 08:00
@bluecarrot16:
I get what you are saying but I prefer my approach.
Specifically, I like the format:
Foeach license...
* description of license
* what does license mean for developers?
* what does license mean for artists?
I think that presents the information in a way that is clear and easy to navigate.
It also minimizes the amount of redundanancy.
To whit, it's very hard to say 'what does this license mean for ...' without getting into a discussion of what the license is, so it's better to put it all in one place.
If someone reads the proposed descriptions of the license they will walk away with a good understanding of what the licenses mean and what they need to do to comply with them. So why have another section that talks about it all a bunch more and from slighlty different angles and also talks about /all/ the license at once, instead of clearly enunciating what each individual license means? I can only see this adding confusion for readers.
> Is my game a "derivative work" (also known as an "adaptation") of the artwork?
I think we are all in agreement that there should be a section discussing this topic.
I prefer my approach (from the final section of my last post) here as well.
I think this approach is better because it:
1) clearly enumerates the known and agreed up cases where a work is a derivative
2) stops there with minimal speculation as to what else might or might not be a derivative.
I actually think on point #2 my text could stand to be even more succint but it was a first draft, so maybe with a little polish we can get it there.
Here's the text so you don't have to go look it up:
Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?
The CC-BY-SA licenses clearly define altering, translating, remixing, re-arraning, or otherwise modifying a CC-BY-SA work as making a derivative work.
Additionally, the licenses specifically define syncronizing a CC-SA-BY licensed sound or music work to a moving image as creating a derivative work.
Beyond this, different readings of the licenses may produce more or less expansive definitions of what consititutes a derivative work. By some readings an entire game could be considered a derivative work.
Creative Commons has also clarified that simply using an unmodified sprite or graphic in a game would not, in their view, create a derivative work. However, they have also stated that if a given sprite or graphic came with a developed character or story line then a game using those character or story elements would be considered a derivative work.
Unfortunately, further guidance cannot be provided as there is, as of this writing, no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
> I'm submitting art/music to the site. What license should I choose?
Similar to the original proposal's approach with 'I'm a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?', I suggest this simply be handled with a redirect to the description of the licenses.
Again, once you have a good description of each license and what they mean, anything else you say is just repitition at best and more likely confusing noise.
> We do not recommend you use CC-BY 3.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0, or GPL 2.0 unless you have no other choice because you are creating a derivative...
I agree there probably should be a section that talks about the license version numbers. How about somethig simpler and more to the point, ie adding the question:
'What's with all these version numbers? Is there a reason I should chose one license version over another?'
From time to time, Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation have updated the legal language of their licenses to reflect changes in copyright case law and to better reflect the licenses' original intent.
As a rule of thumb, the newest version of a license provides the best legal protection for a work. Therefore, OGA recommends artists submit their work under the latest version of any given license. (eg. if you elect to submit a work under a CC-BY license, choose CC-BY-3.0).
It is also recommended that submitters check the "Allow later license versions" option when submitting work. This allows works to be used under newer versions of a license as those become available.
@medicinestorm: I see the proposed changes have made it up onto the site. Excelsior!! I guess we can now start calling it the 'current site text' instead of the 'proposed text' :)
This set is AWESOME!!
It is taking all my will power not to put down my two active projects and do something with this set for the Spring OGA Game Jam.
Can I ask, how do you picture the game playing? It looks like a series of single screen challenges. Something like Donkey Kong or other classic arcade games.
PM me if you don't want to reveal your secrets publically. :)
Awesome! It's a great heart pendant to start with but the blue and red veins really send it over the top! It's somehow both really kiddie and really brutal at the same time! I love it! Thanks for sharing!
This is a nice set! I used it in the logo for this year's OGA Summer Game Jam.
https://itch.io/jam/opengamearts-summer-game-jam-2023
For the logo, I shrunk and recolored window2 to SMS palette, added a little sun too. Here's a copy in case it's any use to anyone.
Thanks for sharing!
Well, it doesn't start until July so we've some time to go yet.
https://itch.io/jam/opengamearts-summer-game-jam-2023
And for good measure, here's the shrunk down verison from the logo.
Love this pic! Used it for the OGA Summer Game Jam 2023 logo.
Ported it to SMS palette and also cleaned up some of the edges/anti-aliasing.
It was enough work that it seemed like sharing, so here you go!
Yeah, I'll second congusbongus. I love the idea of an RPG populated by fellow OGAers, but you should probably seek written permission from each user before using their name.
TBH, a better, safer approach would be to use parody names. For example, for meidcinestorm you could use 'medicaltempest', for EmceeFlesher you could use 'MC Fresher', etc. etc.
That way it's clear to everyone (players, OGA users, etc.) that you're just having some fun and nothing is meant to seriously reflect anyone's character, personality, etc.
That also adds an extra layer of fun for players because they can play 'spot the OGA reference' with the NPC names.
Cute indeed! Thanks for sharing!
There are not too many italic fonts on OGA so this is a great contribution.
> we probably just have a different perspective
I think that's probably it.
> If I imagine answering such a question with the current text, I'm basically telling someone "look, just go understand the licenses," which feels less helpful to me than "you can use the art if you think about/address the following issues: A, B, C, D"
I don't think that's an entirely fair assesment. 'just go understand the licenses' would just be links to the raw license text. The proposed text provides a description of each license along with a short explanation of what that means for developers and for artists, so it's more like 'here's decription of each license and what it means, you decide what's best for you' which seems entirely fair and in keeping with the sites license agnostic policy.
I get the idea behind more conceptual dialogue, I just think it's better for spell things out as directly as possible. If we want to add a more long form discussion of the ins and outs of it all later in the doc (maybe under 'Can you talk more about the licenses and what they mean?' question) but starting with a basic, clear description of the license is going to be the most helpful approach, especially for new comers.
> "what is a derivative work"
Can we start with this:
* The section should clearly enunciate the known, well defined uses that make a derivative work (modifications, etc. etc + syncing sound with video)
It's easy to take that for granted when we get into our long disussions about copyright law, etc. etc. but truthhully, for a new comer, this is the most important thing to state. That is, what are the cases that for sure ceate a derivative work?
After that, however we want to phrase the 'everything else is ambiguous and unknown' part is fine. My only concern is that it be done in a way that is clear and doesn't unnecessarily bias readers towards or away from any particular license or licenses. To that end, I think we'll find that the less we say the better, but I could be wrong.
> If you want to be sure your art can be used in larger projects that are licensed under the GPL v3, choose CC-BY-SA 4.0; CC-BY-SA 4.0 is compatible with the GPL v3 (link) but also has terms that are more clearly applicable to art than GPL v3
This does seem like a point that's worth working in there somewhere.
@bluecarrot16:
I get what you are saying but I prefer my approach.
Specifically, I like the format:
Foeach license...
* description of license
* what does license mean for developers?
* what does license mean for artists?
I think that presents the information in a way that is clear and easy to navigate.
It also minimizes the amount of redundanancy.
To whit, it's very hard to say 'what does this license mean for ...' without getting into a discussion of what the license is, so it's better to put it all in one place.
If someone reads the proposed descriptions of the license they will walk away with a good understanding of what the licenses mean and what they need to do to comply with them. So why have another section that talks about it all a bunch more and from slighlty different angles and also talks about /all/ the license at once, instead of clearly enunciating what each individual license means? I can only see this adding confusion for readers.
> Is my game a "derivative work" (also known as an "adaptation") of the artwork?
I think we are all in agreement that there should be a section discussing this topic.
I prefer my approach (from the final section of my last post) here as well.
I think this approach is better because it:
1) clearly enumerates the known and agreed up cases where a work is a derivative
2) stops there with minimal speculation as to what else might or might not be a derivative.
I actually think on point #2 my text could stand to be even more succint but it was a first draft, so maybe with a little polish we can get it there.
Here's the text so you don't have to go look it up:
Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?
The CC-BY-SA licenses clearly define altering, translating, remixing, re-arraning, or otherwise modifying a CC-BY-SA work as making a derivative work.
Additionally, the licenses specifically define syncronizing a CC-SA-BY licensed sound or music work to a moving image as creating a derivative work.
Beyond this, different readings of the licenses may produce more or less expansive definitions of what consititutes a derivative work. By some readings an entire game could be considered a derivative work.
Creative Commons has attempted to provide some guidance on the issue here (link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Wh...)
Creative Commons has also clarified that simply using an unmodified sprite or graphic in a game would not, in their view, create a derivative work. However, they have also stated that if a given sprite or graphic came with a developed character or story line then a game using those character or story elements would be considered a derivative work.
Unfortunately, further guidance cannot be provided as there is, as of this writing, no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
> I'm submitting art/music to the site. What license should I choose?
Similar to the original proposal's approach with 'I'm a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?', I suggest this simply be handled with a redirect to the description of the licenses.
Again, once you have a good description of each license and what they mean, anything else you say is just repitition at best and more likely confusing noise.
> We do not recommend you use CC-BY 3.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0, or GPL 2.0 unless you have no other choice because you are creating a derivative...
I agree there probably should be a section that talks about the license version numbers. How about somethig simpler and more to the point, ie adding the question:
'What's with all these version numbers? Is there a reason I should chose one license version over another?'
From time to time, Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation have updated the legal language of their licenses to reflect changes in copyright case law and to better reflect the licenses' original intent.
As a rule of thumb, the newest version of a license provides the best legal protection for a work. Therefore, OGA recommends artists submit their work under the latest version of any given license. (eg. if you elect to submit a work under a CC-BY license, choose CC-BY-3.0).
It is also recommended that submitters check the "Allow later license versions" option when submitting work. This allows works to be used under newer versions of a license as those become available.
@medicinestorm: I see the proposed changes have made it up onto the site. Excelsior!! I guess we can now start calling it the 'current site text' instead of the 'proposed text' :)
Pages