@Redshrike: I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with that interpretation of how permission and distribution work on OGA. OGA must distribute works under some explicit terms, and those terms are the licenses selected with a submission.
The alternative is that submiters are implicitly granting OGA the right to distribute the works however it likes or under some other unspoken terms, which makes no sense.
The bit about removing works upon request is just a courtesy and bear in mind even that is explicitly stated as conditional. That is the site docs don't commit to removing works upon request, they merely state that OGA will try to honor such a request is possible.
Oh no!! That's so sad to hear! Glad this thread caught your eye before we lost you! Hope we can get your account straight quickly, your submissions speak for themselves! It'd be awful if we lost you!
a contact form and a page listing the admins would be a great!
I think RedShrike is mistaken, the works on OGA are most definitely distributed under terms of the chosen licenses and not by any special agreement between an artist and OGA. Aside from glsiepen's point that no such secondary agreement is ever presented to submitters, also consider the fact that OGA accepts third party submissions where there is no chance for such an agreement between OGA and the original artist to be made.
MedicineStorm is correct, however, only the copyright holder can bring suit for a license violation. No one else has standing to do so. This is not an assumption, it's the way the law works. Think of it this way, sonething being GPL'd doesn't entitle anyone to demand source for something, it entitles the author to demand a distributor make source available. So as he says, it would be strange indeed for an author to post a work here sans 'source' and then turn around and sue someone who uses it for not including 'source', what would be the point of that?
@gsliepen: Sorry if I've come off as contentious here, I guess I can be a bit defensive on OGA's behalf at times. But I want to say, you have an important issue and one well worth discussing. And I totally get the point you are making, if this were a site full of binaries for GPL'd programs with no source code in site, that would be a scandal. I think the point the rest of us are making is that with art works it isn't nearly so clear cut and OGA has chosen to be flexible rather than rigid on the issue.
I don't know how easy the formatting is to change but you might move the featured set up so it's closer to top of the page. I had to scroll down a bit to see it. Could be as simple as displaying fewer 'best of all time' results.
The problem is you can't say what the preferred format is, only what format you'd prefer. So you can't really claim someone hasn't provided 'source' already. Anyway, it's a choice, OGA can host GPL works and let folks request something in an alternate format if they think it'd be useful for them, or OGA can remove all GPL'd works and revel in it's purity. I for one am ok with the former. I will add that I am on record saying that ALL the licenses on this site need better explaining and GPL in particular needs some serious caveats around it to discourage the sort of accidental licensing ya'll deacribe. http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
Well, I've downloaded plenty of linux distros in my time and I've never once come across a folder full of layered PSD or XCF files representing the 'source' for all the various images, wallpapers, logos, icons, etc. etc. that came with the distro. Nor have I ever seen similar for the miscellaneous sound files that come with a distro.
It's not like source code where there's a set of common well defined 'preferred formats'.
The works are provided in the format people find useful.
If you want something in another format, ask. Under GPL, source only has to be provided upon request anyways, so make tbe request.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - 20:17
These are georgous! As are the other two sets you posted also.
@Redshrike: I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with that interpretation of how permission and distribution work on OGA. OGA must distribute works under some explicit terms, and those terms are the licenses selected with a submission.
The alternative is that submiters are implicitly granting OGA the right to distribute the works however it likes or under some other unspoken terms, which makes no sense.
The bit about removing works upon request is just a courtesy and bear in mind even that is explicitly stated as conditional. That is the site docs don't commit to removing works upon request, they merely state that OGA will try to honor such a request is possible.
@spiderdave:
Oh no!! That's so sad to hear! Glad this thread caught your eye before we lost you! Hope we can get your account straight quickly, your submissions speak for themselves! It'd be awful if we lost you!
a contact form and a page listing the admins would be a great!
Regarding your issue with using heroism, let me say well chosen! It's a most excellent track indeed! :)
Still, have you tried asking for the song in another format?
Out of curiosity, does debian specify what they want for 'source' for an ogg file?
If you're looking for a substitute, here's a recent submission with a similar feel to it:
http://opengameart.org/content/col-legno
I think RedShrike is mistaken, the works on OGA are most definitely distributed under terms of the chosen licenses and not by any special agreement between an artist and OGA. Aside from glsiepen's point that no such secondary agreement is ever presented to submitters, also consider the fact that OGA accepts third party submissions where there is no chance for such an agreement between OGA and the original artist to be made.
MedicineStorm is correct, however, only the copyright holder can bring suit for a license violation. No one else has standing to do so. This is not an assumption, it's the way the law works. Think of it this way, sonething being GPL'd doesn't entitle anyone to demand source for something, it entitles the author to demand a distributor make source available. So as he says, it would be strange indeed for an author to post a work here sans 'source' and then turn around and sue someone who uses it for not including 'source', what would be the point of that?
Let me add that I only wish I were good enough to use bart's art in my projects!
@MedicineStorm: Well put all the way around.
@gsliepen: Sorry if I've come off as contentious here, I guess I can be a bit defensive on OGA's behalf at times. But I want to say, you have an important issue and one well worth discussing. And I totally get the point you are making, if this were a site full of binaries for GPL'd programs with no source code in site, that would be a scandal. I think the point the rest of us are making is that with art works it isn't nearly so clear cut and OGA has chosen to be flexible rather than rigid on the issue.
That's pretty awesome!!
I don't know how easy the formatting is to change but you might move the featured set up so it's closer to top of the page. I had to scroll down a bit to see it. Could be as simple as displaying fewer 'best of all time' results.
The problem is you can't say what the preferred format is, only what format you'd prefer. So you can't really claim someone hasn't provided 'source' already. Anyway, it's a choice, OGA can host GPL works and let folks request something in an alternate format if they think it'd be useful for them, or OGA can remove all GPL'd works and revel in it's purity. I for one am ok with the former. I will add that I am on record saying that ALL the licenses on this site need better explaining and GPL in particular needs some serious caveats around it to discourage the sort of accidental licensing ya'll deacribe. http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
Well, I've downloaded plenty of linux distros in my time and I've never once come across a folder full of layered PSD or XCF files representing the 'source' for all the various images, wallpapers, logos, icons, etc. etc. that came with the distro. Nor have I ever seen similar for the miscellaneous sound files that come with a distro.
It's not like source code where there's a set of common well defined 'preferred formats'.
The works are provided in the format people find useful.
If you want something in another format, ask. Under GPL, source only has to be provided upon request anyways, so make tbe request.
These are georgous! As are the other two sets you posted also.
Thanks much for sharing!
Pages