@Andrettin: Yeah, that's one way to argue it, but like I say, I've heard it argued the other way also. At the very least, the idea came up during the discussion that lead up to the creation of the OGA-BY license and there was enough uncertainty about 'separate but open' distribution as a satisfactory solution that the OGA-BY license was still created. There were other reasons for creating OGA-BY too, of course, I just mean this idea was discussed and not everyone agreed that it was acceptable way around the anti-DRM clause of the CC-BY license.
@mdwh: I have heard Andriod apps argued both ways with regard to DRM. I would say unless you've had a lawyer go over line of the distribution agreement, I'd assume that the system either has DRM or has the potential to have DRM in the future, or probably imposes some other unacceptable legal restrictions on the work.
So I guess that's why I called it a 'play it safe' list. Basically, rightly or wrongly, I've heard it argued all ways on the other licenses, so my advice would be to steer clear of them for closed source/commercial projects. CC0/Public Domain is pretty widely recognized as ok to do with as you please (although I must admit, I've seen even that debated on these forums ;) and OGA-BY was created with the explicit intent of supporting closed source, commercial projects and distribution on DRM'd platforms. So those two seem safe bets to me.
@congusbongus: > If I want to search for art that only requires attribution, I don't want to have to check 10 boxes.
Except the box you're checking says 'CC-BY 3.0' not 'licenses that only require attribution'. I can see the arguement for adding meta-search features such as a search by 'license that only require attribution', but I don't see who it serves to search for 'CC-BY 3.0' and get back losts of asterixes and other licenses.
I do agree that the CC licenses do a good job of covering the options most folks would want, but I don't think it's the role of the site to try and steer folks to one licenses or another. In fact, it's been stated many times that the goal of the site is to be nuetral in the license wars.
@mdwh: I agree there's a risk with an 'Other' category being something of a cespool, but then at least it would be contained to the 'Other' category, as opposed to the current situation where searching by 'CC-BY' can net you all flavor of licenes depending on who views what as 'compatibile'. And you're right an 'Other' category would have to be policed, but really so does all the art submitted to the site anyway and at least it gives an obvious place to look for issues.
> an alternative licence in the main text isn't acceptable imo.
I personally agree with this, but it does seem like the site admins are willing to tolerate it in at least some cases. Hopefully this thread can help steer us to a better solution.
Here's an example of something submitted with a custom license that generally seems free but no one's willing to say can be safely 'relicensed' so it literally has nowhere to go on the site:
> using a digital distributor hardly poses an issue for open-source software,
> as long as you make the source available, and you don't use any closed-source libraries.
I don't know for software, but for CC-BY 3.0 artwork, it seems subject to debate if simply making the original material available somewhere is enough to get around the anti-DRM clause. The idea being that if you are distributing it on any platform that imposes 'additional technical measures' then you are imposing 'additional technical measures' regardless of what you do elsewhere.
Monday, May 11, 2015 - 00:11
So let me toss in there that if you modify the source png's in any way (like say, changing the spacing or layout for a sprite sheet, or combining two or more images into one texture, or saving as a different format) then you are out of 'loading a dll' territory and potentially into 'derivative work' territory.
Also, everything Nikita_Sadkov said about Apple, assume that applies to every other digital distribution network or will apply once their lawyers get around to it.
Additionally, the 'technical measures' restriction is generally interpretted to mean 'NO DRM.' There seems to be some debate about what platforms use DRM and to what extent. IOS, PSN and XBL almost certainly count as 'DRM'ed' platforms. I've heard arguments both ways on Steam and Android.
Generally, I'd say if you want to play it safe, you're list should look like:
safe for commercial/closed source projects: cc0
oga-by 3.0
unsafe for commercial/closed source projects:
anything else!
For cc-by stuff, commercial distribution might be ok if you are using a DRM-free PC installer and distributing only on sites that directly redistribute your installer (things like itch.io, etc.) and not on sites that repackage your program for their own download clients (GMG, etc.).
Again, this is play it safe advice. If there's something CC-BY or whatnot that you just have to use in your project, I'd advise you ask the artist directly. The original author can always grant you a waiver and folks can be pretty accomodating as long as you are polite and nice about how you ask.
@Andrettin: Yeah, that's one way to argue it, but like I say, I've heard it argued the other way also. At the very least, the idea came up during the discussion that lead up to the creation of the OGA-BY license and there was enough uncertainty about 'separate but open' distribution as a satisfactory solution that the OGA-BY license was still created. There were other reasons for creating OGA-BY too, of course, I just mean this idea was discussed and not everyone agreed that it was acceptable way around the anti-DRM clause of the CC-BY license.
@mdwh: I have heard Andriod apps argued both ways with regard to DRM. I would say unless you've had a lawyer go over line of the distribution agreement, I'd assume that the system either has DRM or has the potential to have DRM in the future, or probably imposes some other unacceptable legal restrictions on the work.
So I guess that's why I called it a 'play it safe' list. Basically, rightly or wrongly, I've heard it argued all ways on the other licenses, so my advice would be to steer clear of them for closed source/commercial projects. CC0/Public Domain is pretty widely recognized as ok to do with as you please (although I must admit, I've seen even that debated on these forums ;) and OGA-BY was created with the explicit intent of supporting closed source, commercial projects and distribution on DRM'd platforms. So those two seem safe bets to me.
@congusbongus:
> If I want to search for art that only requires attribution, I don't want to have to check 10 boxes.
Except the box you're checking says 'CC-BY 3.0' not 'licenses that only require attribution'. I can see the arguement for adding meta-search features such as a search by 'license that only require attribution', but I don't see who it serves to search for 'CC-BY 3.0' and get back losts of asterixes and other licenses.
I do agree that the CC licenses do a good job of covering the options most folks would want, but I don't think it's the role of the site to try and steer folks to one licenses or another. In fact, it's been stated many times that the goal of the site is to be nuetral in the license wars.
@mdwh: I agree there's a risk with an 'Other' category being something of a cespool, but then at least it would be contained to the 'Other' category, as opposed to the current situation where searching by 'CC-BY' can net you all flavor of licenes depending on who views what as 'compatibile'. And you're right an 'Other' category would have to be policed, but really so does all the art submitted to the site anyway and at least it gives an obvious place to look for issues.
> an alternative licence in the main text isn't acceptable imo.
I personally agree with this, but it does seem like the site admins are willing to tolerate it in at least some cases. Hopefully this thread can help steer us to a better solution.
> are there examples of this?
Here's two recent examples:
http://opengameart.org/content/blasphemer-assets
(BSD license listed as CC-BY 3.0)
http://opengameart.org/content/citadel-images
(Zlib license listed as CC-BY and OGA-BY)
Here's an example of something submitted with a custom license that generally seems free but no one's willing to say can be safely 'relicensed' so it literally has nowhere to go on the site:
http://opengameart.org/content/s31-scientists-02
(this is actually one of a bunch of sheets posted this way)
@Andrettin:
> using a digital distributor hardly poses an issue for open-source software,
> as long as you make the source available, and you don't use any closed-source libraries.
I don't know for software, but for CC-BY 3.0 artwork, it seems subject to debate if simply making the original material available somewhere is enough to get around the anti-DRM clause. The idea being that if you are distributing it on any platform that imposes 'additional technical measures' then you are imposing 'additional technical measures' regardless of what you do elsewhere.
So let me toss in there that if you modify the source png's in any way (like say, changing the spacing or layout for a sprite sheet, or combining two or more images into one texture, or saving as a different format) then you are out of 'loading a dll' territory and potentially into 'derivative work' territory.
Also, everything Nikita_Sadkov said about Apple, assume that applies to every other digital distribution network or will apply once their lawyers get around to it.
Additionally, the 'technical measures' restriction is generally interpretted to mean 'NO DRM.' There seems to be some debate about what platforms use DRM and to what extent. IOS, PSN and XBL almost certainly count as 'DRM'ed' platforms. I've heard arguments both ways on Steam and Android.
Generally, I'd say if you want to play it safe, you're list should look like:
safe for commercial/closed source projects:
cc0
oga-by 3.0
unsafe for commercial/closed source projects:
anything else!
For cc-by stuff, commercial distribution might be ok if you are using a DRM-free PC installer and distributing only on sites that directly redistribute your installer (things like itch.io, etc.) and not on sites that repackage your program for their own download clients (GMG, etc.).
Again, this is play it safe advice. If there's something CC-BY or whatnot that you just have to use in your project, I'd advise you ask the artist directly. The original author can always grant you a waiver and folks can be pretty accomodating as long as you are polite and nice about how you ask.
If you used cc-sa stuff do you need to mention what and by whom?
Not up on my cc-sa minutia but it seems like depending on how much you changed the original artist should still get some credit.
Nikita_Sadkov's right, what's the source for this picture?
and what's the point of 'redrawing' it? do you want something in a different style?
These are great! Thanks much for sharing!
yay!!
thanks!
These are great! thanks for sharing!
love the furry guys and the green goblins, floppy ears are a great touch, so cute!
Just to toss it in there, CC-BY has the 'technical measures' restriction, which I don't think is part of BSD license.
So wouldn't a better choice for BSD stuff be OGA-BY?
Although, IMHO, if BSD licensed art is going up on the site, it should be listed as BSD license.
Pages