@Clint Bellanger: Guess you are not a fan of OGA-BY huh? ;)
I do think an 'Other' with a mandatory review by a MOD would be a pretty good solution. So the work doesn't even appear on the site until a moderator approves it. Although, I'm guessing that would require some further web development which I'm also going to guess makes it a non-starter.
At the very least, in the meantime, perhaps we could just update the site FAQ to clearly state the policy against 'equivalent' licensing? eg. where it now says:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses"
it could read:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses by the original artist(s). Relicensing, or submitting works under 'equivalent' or 'compatible' licenses is not allowed even in cases where it maybe legally acceptable to do so. "
As an addendum, while we are on the topic of this phrase from the FAQ and again not to pick on Nikita_Sadkov's posts specifically, but the way the discussion in the Blasphmer assets and a few other submissions blew up, has made me wonder if there shouldn't be a more explicit restriction on submitting the works of others. Something like, 'You may only submit the works of other artists if the work is part of a larger project for which you yourself are also a contributor.' The idea being that it's ok for one artist on a team to submit works on behalf of the entire team, but otherwise folks shouldn't be submitting works that are not their own. Well, maybe that's too restrictive, but like I say a few of the recent discussions show the dangers of accepting submissions from uninvolved 3rd parties.
In general, I think there's a lot that can be done just by clarifying the language of the site faq a little.
To be clear, it was not my intention to get Nikita_Sadkov's submissions removed. I was hoping we could find a way to accomodate those works w/o having submissions whose license boxes did not actually match the work's real license.
Is there honestly no room for an 'Other License' category?
@Clint Bellanger:
> Maybe we can build an updated licensing help page.
Yes, I whole heartedly agree with this idea. I actually think there's plenty of room for improvement without adding any new features (pop ups, etc.) to the site. Just expanding and improving the wording of what's already there. See my other feedback thread: ;)
I actually think the FAQ is a great way to handle supporting BSD, MIT, etc. licenses. Just add the licenses to the available list and then in the FAQ for them put a note that says something like 'These are code-centric licenses included on OGA in order to support art submissions from legacy projects . It is not recomended that you use them for licensing new art.'
ps
as long as I have you ear, I'll point out that each of the flagged submissions also highlight the 'preview is the artwork' issue I've complained about before ;)
I don't think Nikita_Sadkov's trying to 're-license' any of these works, rather he's checked a 'similar' license and then added a blurb in the description stating the actual license.
My concern is that the more entries the site has like this, the less useful a 'search by license' becomes because whatever the results, you've still got to go check the notes of each submission to see if it's not actually some other license.
@mdwh: CC0 almost covers section31's case, the issue is that the works are derived from art licensed under a custom license. The license appears to be pretty liberal, but it is custom so there's no bucket for it to go into on OGA. The best bet for that one is to contact the original author and ask for permission to post here as OGA-BY or CC-BY or something.
yeah, I love the hammer! I like that it's not comically oversized but still looks like it'd hurt alot to get hit by it! It also gives the otherwise very clean, knightly warrior a slightly darker hue, since it is such a primitive and brutal weapon.
I also thought the free hand read ok like it was resting on the end of the hammer handle, but you might try extending the handle just to see if it helps.
If we're not going to add other licenses, or an 'other license' category, can we at least get an addendum to the site faq listing what the acceptable 'license equivalencies' to use are?
Thursday, May 21, 2015 - 02:40
oh yeah, there it is!
they sure do a good job hiding it but at least I know where to look next time, thanks! :)
Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - 08:39
@Julius: Is CC-BY 3.0 the right license for this? The deviant art page just seems to say they are 'free' and the only comment from Pix3M on it was:
Credit appreciated, but I'm not gonna chase people down unless they do something really stupid. Do whatever with it.
@Clint Bellanger: Guess you are not a fan of OGA-BY huh? ;)
I do think an 'Other' with a mandatory review by a MOD would be a pretty good solution. So the work doesn't even appear on the site until a moderator approves it. Although, I'm guessing that would require some further web development which I'm also going to guess makes it a non-starter.
At the very least, in the meantime, perhaps we could just update the site FAQ to clearly state the policy against 'equivalent' licensing? eg. where it now says:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses"
it could read:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses by the original artist(s). Relicensing, or submitting works under 'equivalent' or 'compatible' licenses is not allowed even in cases where it maybe legally acceptable to do so. "
As an addendum, while we are on the topic of this phrase from the FAQ and again not to pick on Nikita_Sadkov's posts specifically, but the way the discussion in the Blasphmer assets and a few other submissions blew up, has made me wonder if there shouldn't be a more explicit restriction on submitting the works of others. Something like, 'You may only submit the works of other artists if the work is part of a larger project for which you yourself are also a contributor.' The idea being that it's ok for one artist on a team to submit works on behalf of the entire team, but otherwise folks shouldn't be submitting works that are not their own. Well, maybe that's too restrictive, but like I say a few of the recent discussions show the dangers of accepting submissions from uninvolved 3rd parties.
In general, I think there's a lot that can be done just by clarifying the language of the site faq a little.
To be clear, it was not my intention to get Nikita_Sadkov's submissions removed. I was hoping we could find a way to accomodate those works w/o having submissions whose license boxes did not actually match the work's real license.
Is there honestly no room for an 'Other License' category?
@Clint Bellanger:
> Maybe we can build an updated licensing help page.
Yes, I whole heartedly agree with this idea. I actually think there's plenty of room for improvement without adding any new features (pop ups, etc.) to the site. Just expanding and improving the wording of what's already there. See my other feedback thread: ;)
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/oga-and-license-faq-updatechanges-0
I actually think the FAQ is a great way to handle supporting BSD, MIT, etc. licenses. Just add the licenses to the available list and then in the FAQ for them put a note that says something like 'These are code-centric licenses included on OGA in order to support art submissions from legacy projects . It is not recomended that you use them for licensing new art.'
ps
as long as I have you ear, I'll point out that each of the flagged submissions also highlight the 'preview is the artwork' issue I've complained about before ;)
http://opengameart.org/comment/37058#comment-37058
I don't know what the solution for that is, but I do think these three submissions do a great job of showing why it's an issue.
Well, not to pick on Nikita_Sadkov's posts, but here are three examples for you:
http://opengameart.org/content/ari-feldmans-spritelib
http://opengameart.org/content/blasphemer-assets
http://opengameart.org/content/citadel-images
I don't think Nikita_Sadkov's trying to 're-license' any of these works, rather he's checked a 'similar' license and then added a blurb in the description stating the actual license.
My concern is that the more entries the site has like this, the less useful a 'search by license' becomes because whatever the results, you've still got to go check the notes of each submission to see if it's not actually some other license.
@mdwh: CC0 almost covers section31's case, the issue is that the works are derived from art licensed under a custom license. The license appears to be pretty liberal, but it is custom so there's no bucket for it to go into on OGA. The best bet for that one is to contact the original author and ask for permission to post here as OGA-BY or CC-BY or something.
yeah, I love the hammer! I like that it's not comically oversized but still looks like it'd hurt alot to get hit by it! It also gives the otherwise very clean, knightly warrior a slightly darker hue, since it is such a primitive and brutal weapon.
I also thought the free hand read ok like it was resting on the end of the hammer handle, but you might try extending the handle just to see if it helps.
@all: I would just like to point out that we continue to see 'equivalent license' sumissions.
Most recently, this posting which is listed as CC-BY-SA when it is actually licensed as 'Common Public License'
http://opengameart.org/content/ari-feldmans-spritelib
If we're not going to add other licenses, or an 'other license' category, can we at least get an addendum to the site faq listing what the acceptable 'license equivalencies' to use are?
oh yeah, there it is!
they sure do a good job hiding it but at least I know where to look next time, thanks! :)
@Julius: Is CC-BY 3.0 the right license for this? The deviant art page just seems to say they are 'free' and the only comment from Pix3M on it was:
Credit appreciated, but I'm not gonna chase people down unless they do something really stupid. Do whatever with it.
really cute and the animations are great! I love it! Awesome to another cool female character on OGA!
This is awesome!! Got a great spooky halloween vibe to it! Thanks much for sharing!
Pages