Actually, have slept on your arguments for a few days, I think I've not only come around to your point of view on this one, I think it probably is worth adding something in there to address this concern. Afterall, it is pretty common question around here. What about adding a line like:
Additionally, Creative Commons has stated that generally souce code for a game would not be considered part of a 'derivative' work and therefore could be used with CC-BY-SA works without itself needing to distributed as CC-BY-SA.
To the 'derivative works' description?
Considering the general caveat to seek legal counsel that follows, I would be comfortable with that.
@all:
Ok, before I repost the whole blob, how's this for a re-write of the GPL section:
GNU GPL 2.0 and GNU GPL 3.0
These licenses were written with source code in mind, and are included on OGA for compatibility with projects that use GPL licenses.
However, they have yet to provide specific guidiance for how the licenses apply in most common video game art use scenarios (eg. using a sprite sheet licensed as GPL 2.0).
If you are using art, use with GPL-licensed projects is ok. Those working on non-GPL licensed projects (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0 works in their project.
If you are submitting art, you should use these licenses only if it is part of a bigger project that uses a GPL license and/or you have read the full license and know what you are doing.
However, OGA is totally art focused so I don't think there's a proper place to upload something like that.
I suppose if you had a sample sheet or two, you could bundle those with the code and post it as an art submission but that's kind of bending the rules a little.
Alternately, you might try setting up a source forge site for the project, not sure what it takes to do that but I know that's where alot of open source code projects go to live.
About your proggy, does it load a TTF and export to PNG or something?
Does it spit out any meta data (sprite data, curning data, etc)?
Any options to add an outline to the font?
Just curious.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 14:59
@mdwh:
> I don't see anything in the licence that compels me to distribute it?
> (If I modify a CC BY-SA asset but don't distribute it, even though the asset is still under CC BY-SA, I'm not required to distribute it to anyone.)
you're right, I think it's a valid point that the license doesn't compel you to do anything, but unless you are creating art for yourself in a vacuum, then it's not really relevant.
Just assume when I say 'the license compels you to distribute as CC-BY-SA' I mean 'IF you chose to distribute, the license compels you to distribute as CC-BY-SA'.
re: source code
I guess I just feel like if we can't define what constitutes an adaption to begin with, then it doesn't seem like a great idea to start supposing about what may or may not be considered part of an adaptation.
I certainly agree, there seems to be plenty of grounds to suggest that source would not be covered by the SA clause. On the otherhand, I don't think I could look anybody thinking of using an CC-BY-SA asset in a closed source project in the eye and say 'Yeah that's a great idea! You should do that!'
Again, just my view of it and I fully admit I lean more towards the cautious side of these things.
I guess for the purposes of the site docs and faq, the issue can be left aside, as it's probably just enough to include a warning that a project, or parts of it, may fall under the SA clause, without delving into what those parts might be.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 12:19
@mdwh:
> Whether or not games would be covered as derivative works under CC BY SA,
> in neither case would CC BY SA require you to release source code.
I'm just not sure that's the case.
It's clear using CC-BY-SA assets could compel you to release other game assets as CC-BY-SA (eg. in the case of the synchronized sound).
It seems possible that using CC-BY-SA assets could compel you to release the entire game as CC-BY-SA (ex. using 'Hoppy Bunny' sprites, where the original artist has created a story line/character portrait to go along with the sprites).
It doesn't seem crystal clear that source code would never be considered part of an adaptation. I can see where CC is suggesting that source code does not fall under the SA clause, but they also hedge everything they say, and are generally reluctant to give out any absolutes to where I personally could not recommend someone use CC-SA-BY sutff with a closed source project.
re: 'open source' and CC-BY-SA:
Yeah, you raise exactly the issue that jumped out at me, it seems like using CC-BY-SA assets along with anything issued under any other license could be problematic.
@MedicineStorm:
> Because it is so situationally specific, each artist and each developer have to assess if this
> license is appropriate for their specific project.
I agree, and that certainly is my take away from this in regards to CC-BY-SA. But at the same time, that really undermines the useful of the license. The idea of these common licenses is to have some common, well understood terms of use, so each artist and each user don't have to sit down and agree to terms for every project and use. Put another way, if you have to contact the original artist to know if you can use their stuff in your project, the license has failed. I mean, all you're doing there is creating a custom license agreement for each work and use, which you could always do anyway, so how has the CC license helped?
btw that's not really a question for you, just an expression of frustration I guess ;)
> re: SpriteDisplayerPro
Yeah, here you raise an interesting question. It's clear that the tools you use to create a 'derivative' are not intended to fall under the SA clause. But are the inputs to those tools subject to the SA clause, or just the final outputs? I think maybe CC is only after the outputs. In that case, this would not be the bunny hop sprites, but rather the final video of the bunny hopping to the music.
Viewed through this prism, code would just be one of the many inputs to a 'derivative' and not subject to the SA clause.
But it's interesting that in their example, CC says you would have to share alike the 'you would need to ShareAlike the moving image that uses the music'. If they mean the sprites, independent of the rest of the project, then that would be asking for an input. But it seems to me like what they want is the final creative project.
@all: I thought the bit in their reply about if you use sprites for 'a character with existing story lines and character development, then using that character in a new story line likely would be an adaptation.' was particularly interesting and seemed to get to the heart of what CC is after with these licenses.
They are trying to protect 'creative' stuff (ideas, characters, stories, etc.) which seems to run a lot deeper and broader than just the mechanical 'sprite sheets and sound effects' that we think of on OGA. In this way, it makes sense for the license to be broad and even vague in how it defines an 'adaptation', it's a sort of 'you'll know it when you see it' approach.
Again, this makes it very hard to recommend using CC-BY-SA stuff with commercial or closed source projects (or even open source projects for the reasons mdwh raises).
re: MedicineStorm's 'Bunny Hunter' example. It's interesting to note that if the original artist had added the submission note 'Hoppy Bunny who likes to eat carrots', and you then made a game with Hoppy introducing 'Bunny Hunter' who hunts Hoppy while he tries to eat carrots, then you would be in adaptation territory.
Well, all this taken into account, how's this for a re-write of the CC-BY-SA descrition:
This license is an extension to CC-BY 3.0 which includes provisions stating that derivative works must also be distributed under the same license. Works released under this license maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must obey all of the restrictions of the CC-BY 3.0 license (enumerated above (link))
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA-3.0)
The definition of a derivative work is not black and white and there is some ambiguity about how the term applies to using art works in a video game or related project. Creative Commons has attempted to provide some guidance on the issue here (link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Wh...), however they have yet to provide specific guidance for most common video game use scenarios (eg. using a sprite sheet licensed as CC-BY-SA). One use case is clear and spelled out explicitly by the CC-SA-BY 3.0 license: if you sychronize a moving image to a piece of music or sound effect licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0, then you must distribute the resultant work as CC-BY-SA 3.0 also.
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY 3.0 should they be deemed to consititute a derivative of the original work. Those working on projects for which this might be an issue (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using CC-BY-SA 3.0 works in their project.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
Well, I heard back again today, here's the unedited reply, interested to hear what folks make of it. To me it still seems like it'd be hard to recommend someone use CC-BY-SA assets with a closed source project. At the same time, I'm really impressed they've taken the time to reply and do seem genuinely interested in helping us understand the licenses.
Hey Scott,
Thanks for the email. I'm happy to provide my thoughts about these two scenarios, but I should note that my opinion does not necessarily reflect what CC licensors might want or expect. I know that is stating the obvious, but just wanted to point it out since you mentioned wanting to adhere to the original artist's wishes.
Re: the PNG file example, to me that doesn't sound like an adaptation if they are using the file unmodified. It sounds more like a reproduction, which would just mean that the file itself remains under BY-SA, but the other copyrighted material in the game could be licensed differently. (Note that if the original BY-SA content was a character with existing story lines and character development, then using that character in a new story line likely would be an adaptation.)
Re: the synching example, you're right that it would apply to any musical composition or sound recording, including a sound effect file. The adaptation would be the work that synchronizes that music with a moving image. I don't know enough about the process of game development to know whether the sprite sheet would be the embodiment of that or not.
Your questions make me wonder if you think there are forms of more generalized guidance from CC that might be useful in this domain. We are currently doing a lot of thinking about projects we will take on for the next couple of years at CC, so I'd be very interested in whether you think there is a need for CC to publish guidance about these sorts of issues. We'd welcome your input on that.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016 - 12:20
@Chris_M_The_Game_Dude:
Glad you found it helpful! Nota buena though, be sure to read the discussion at the bottom of the feedback forum post:
mdwh has correctly raised a concern about whether games qualify as 'Adaptations/Derivatives' or 'Collections' with regards to the 'share alike' clause CC-BY-SA licenses. I have contacted the Creative Commons team to try and get some clarification on the issue, but their initial response was very much 'it depends', implying that CC-BY-SA assets should not be used in closed source projects unless you're prepared for the possibility that you may ultimately have to share your source.
Making this a sticky post would be a good start, the ultimate goal is to get the site docs updated. But even then maybe a sticky post that directs people to the docs/FAQ would be good.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016 - 06:42
this is great! I don't know if it's what you were going for, or just the title planting a suggestion in my mind but it's great music to program to! Kind of captures the feeling of it real well, a sort of grand, exciting but lonely adventure. I love it!
@mdwh:
> Just to clarify...
Gotcha.
> I agree with that.
Actually, have slept on your arguments for a few days, I think I've not only come around to your point of view on this one, I think it probably is worth adding something in there to address this concern. Afterall, it is pretty common question around here. What about adding a line like:
Additionally, Creative Commons has stated that generally souce code for a game would not be considered part of a 'derivative' work and therefore could be used with CC-BY-SA works without itself needing to distributed as CC-BY-SA.
To the 'derivative works' description?
Considering the general caveat to seek legal counsel that follows, I would be comfortable with that.
@all:
Ok, before I repost the whole blob, how's this for a re-write of the GPL section:
GNU GPL 2.0 and GNU GPL 3.0
These licenses were written with source code in mind, and are included on OGA for compatibility with projects that use GPL licenses.
GNU has provided some guidance for how these licenses may apply to art or other 'non-source-code' items here (link to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware).
However, they have yet to provide specific guidiance for how the licenses apply in most common video game art use scenarios (eg. using a sprite sheet licensed as GPL 2.0).
If you are using art, use with GPL-licensed projects is ok. Those working on non-GPL licensed projects (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0 works in their project.
If you are submitting art, you should use these licenses only if it is part of a bigger project that uses a GPL license and/or you have read the full license and know what you are doing.
Full license texts available here (link to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html)
These are great! Especially nice to see more 8-way sprites come to OGA!
Thanks for sharing!
Love it!
Not to nit-pick, but did you mean 32x32 character sheet instead of 8x8?
This is great!
Really polished, thanks much for sharing!
That would be pretty handy!
However, OGA is totally art focused so I don't think there's a proper place to upload something like that.
I suppose if you had a sample sheet or two, you could bundle those with the code and post it as an art submission but that's kind of bending the rules a little.
Alternately, you might try setting up a source forge site for the project, not sure what it takes to do that but I know that's where alot of open source code projects go to live.
About your proggy, does it load a TTF and export to PNG or something?
Does it spit out any meta data (sprite data, curning data, etc)?
Any options to add an outline to the font?
Just curious.
@mdwh:
> I don't see anything in the licence that compels me to distribute it?
> (If I modify a CC BY-SA asset but don't distribute it, even though the asset is still under CC BY-SA, I'm not required to distribute it to anyone.)
you're right, I think it's a valid point that the license doesn't compel you to do anything, but unless you are creating art for yourself in a vacuum, then it's not really relevant.
Just assume when I say 'the license compels you to distribute as CC-BY-SA' I mean 'IF you chose to distribute, the license compels you to distribute as CC-BY-SA'.
re: source code
I guess I just feel like if we can't define what constitutes an adaption to begin with, then it doesn't seem like a great idea to start supposing about what may or may not be considered part of an adaptation.
I certainly agree, there seems to be plenty of grounds to suggest that source would not be covered by the SA clause. On the otherhand, I don't think I could look anybody thinking of using an CC-BY-SA asset in a closed source project in the eye and say 'Yeah that's a great idea! You should do that!'
Again, just my view of it and I fully admit I lean more towards the cautious side of these things.
I guess for the purposes of the site docs and faq, the issue can be left aside, as it's probably just enough to include a warning that a project, or parts of it, may fall under the SA clause, without delving into what those parts might be.
@mdwh:
> Whether or not games would be covered as derivative works under CC BY SA,
> in neither case would CC BY SA require you to release source code.
I'm just not sure that's the case.
It's clear using CC-BY-SA assets could compel you to release other game assets as CC-BY-SA (eg. in the case of the synchronized sound).
It seems possible that using CC-BY-SA assets could compel you to release the entire game as CC-BY-SA (ex. using 'Hoppy Bunny' sprites, where the original artist has created a story line/character portrait to go along with the sprites).
It doesn't seem crystal clear that source code would never be considered part of an adaptation. I can see where CC is suggesting that source code does not fall under the SA clause, but they also hedge everything they say, and are generally reluctant to give out any absolutes to where I personally could not recommend someone use CC-SA-BY sutff with a closed source project.
re: 'open source' and CC-BY-SA:
Yeah, you raise exactly the issue that jumped out at me, it seems like using CC-BY-SA assets along with anything issued under any other license could be problematic.
@MedicineStorm:
> Because it is so situationally specific, each artist and each developer have to assess if this
> license is appropriate for their specific project.
I agree, and that certainly is my take away from this in regards to CC-BY-SA. But at the same time, that really undermines the useful of the license. The idea of these common licenses is to have some common, well understood terms of use, so each artist and each user don't have to sit down and agree to terms for every project and use. Put another way, if you have to contact the original artist to know if you can use their stuff in your project, the license has failed. I mean, all you're doing there is creating a custom license agreement for each work and use, which you could always do anyway, so how has the CC license helped?
btw that's not really a question for you, just an expression of frustration I guess ;)
> re: SpriteDisplayerPro
Yeah, here you raise an interesting question. It's clear that the tools you use to create a 'derivative' are not intended to fall under the SA clause. But are the inputs to those tools subject to the SA clause, or just the final outputs? I think maybe CC is only after the outputs. In that case, this would not be the bunny hop sprites, but rather the final video of the bunny hopping to the music.
Viewed through this prism, code would just be one of the many inputs to a 'derivative' and not subject to the SA clause.
But it's interesting that in their example, CC says you would have to share alike the 'you would need to ShareAlike the moving image that uses the music'. If they mean the sprites, independent of the rest of the project, then that would be asking for an input. But it seems to me like what they want is the final creative project.
@all: I thought the bit in their reply about if you use sprites for 'a character with existing story lines and character development, then using that character in a new story line likely would be an adaptation.' was particularly interesting and seemed to get to the heart of what CC is after with these licenses.
They are trying to protect 'creative' stuff (ideas, characters, stories, etc.) which seems to run a lot deeper and broader than just the mechanical 'sprite sheets and sound effects' that we think of on OGA. In this way, it makes sense for the license to be broad and even vague in how it defines an 'adaptation', it's a sort of 'you'll know it when you see it' approach.
Again, this makes it very hard to recommend using CC-BY-SA stuff with commercial or closed source projects (or even open source projects for the reasons mdwh raises).
re: MedicineStorm's 'Bunny Hunter' example. It's interesting to note that if the original artist had added the submission note 'Hoppy Bunny who likes to eat carrots', and you then made a game with Hoppy introducing 'Bunny Hunter' who hunts Hoppy while he tries to eat carrots, then you would be in adaptation territory.
Well, all this taken into account, how's this for a re-write of the CC-BY-SA descrition:
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (CC-SA-3.0)
This license is an extension to CC-BY 3.0 which includes provisions stating that derivative works must also be distributed under the same license. Works released under this license maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must obey all of the restrictions of the CC-BY 3.0 license (enumerated above (link))
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA-3.0)
The definition of a derivative work is not black and white and there is some ambiguity about how the term applies to using art works in a video game or related project. Creative Commons has attempted to provide some guidance on the issue here (link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Wh...), however they have yet to provide specific guidance for most common video game use scenarios (eg. using a sprite sheet licensed as CC-BY-SA). One use case is clear and spelled out explicitly by the CC-SA-BY 3.0 license: if you sychronize a moving image to a piece of music or sound effect licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0, then you must distribute the resultant work as CC-BY-SA 3.0 also.
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY 3.0 should they be deemed to consititute a derivative of the original work. Those working on projects for which this might be an issue (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using CC-BY-SA 3.0 works in their project.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
Full license text available here (link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)
Well, I heard back again today, here's the unedited reply, interested to hear what folks make of it. To me it still seems like it'd be hard to recommend someone use CC-BY-SA assets with a closed source project. At the same time, I'm really impressed they've taken the time to reply and do seem genuinely interested in helping us understand the licenses.
Hey Scott,
Thanks for the email. I'm happy to provide my thoughts about these two scenarios, but I should note that my opinion does not necessarily reflect what CC licensors might want or expect. I know that is stating the obvious, but just wanted to point it out since you mentioned wanting to adhere to the original artist's wishes.
Re: the PNG file example, to me that doesn't sound like an adaptation if they are using the file unmodified. It sounds more like a reproduction, which would just mean that the file itself remains under BY-SA, but the other copyrighted material in the game could be licensed differently. (Note that if the original BY-SA content was a character with existing story lines and character development, then using that character in a new story line likely would be an adaptation.)
Re: the synching example, you're right that it would apply to any musical composition or sound recording, including a sound effect file. The adaptation would be the work that synchronizes that music with a moving image. I don't know enough about the process of game development to know whether the sprite sheet would be the embodiment of that or not.
Your questions make me wonder if you think there are forms of more generalized guidance from CC that might be useful in this domain. We are currently doing a lot of thinking about projects we will take on for the next couple of years at CC, so I'd be very interested in whether you think there is a need for CC to publish guidance about these sorts of issues. We'd welcome your input on that.
@Chris_M_The_Game_Dude:
Glad you found it helpful! Nota buena though, be sure to read the discussion at the bottom of the feedback forum post:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
mdwh has correctly raised a concern about whether games qualify as 'Adaptations/Derivatives' or 'Collections' with regards to the 'share alike' clause CC-BY-SA licenses. I have contacted the Creative Commons team to try and get some clarification on the issue, but their initial response was very much 'it depends', implying that CC-BY-SA assets should not be used in closed source projects unless you're prepared for the possibility that you may ultimately have to share your source.
Making this a sticky post would be a good start, the ultimate goal is to get the site docs updated. But even then maybe a sticky post that directs people to the docs/FAQ would be good.
this is great! I don't know if it's what you were going for, or just the title planting a suggestion in my mind but it's great music to program to! Kind of captures the feeling of it real well, a sort of grand, exciting but lonely adventure. I love it!
Pages