Here's the language about share-alike for CC-SA-3.0:
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-SA-3.0)
Derivative works inlcude modifications of the original work, but do not include entire projects or games which merely use the work in it's original form.
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 release any derivative works as CC-SA 3.0.
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 they make under the same license.
Does that help clarify things at all? Curious if it helps because the goal of my effort on this is to make the site docs/faqs more clear for people not yet steeped in license babble. :)
Monday, December 21, 2015 - 06:45
looks awesome!
If you're looking for nit-picky stylistic feedback, I guess one could say the bricks, stones and roof tiles from your set do look a little 'clean' relative to Surt's stuff.
But again, that's being picky, the tiles themselves look great! :)
Monday, December 21, 2015 - 06:40
I think this what the tags system is supposed to cover.
There was a pretty good discussion recently on how to improve the tag system, but I'm not sure if anything came of it. :(
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 - 06:33
thanks! I'll have to check out the forums, and make a point to follow a few more devs on there!
Monday, December 14, 2015 - 14:40
@claudeb: is there a community over there? wondering if I missed some forums or something, I thought it was just a store front...
Monday, December 14, 2015 - 08:30
> This may have something to do with the Patreon hack
Hadn't thought of that, but come to think of it, I just had to cancel my card due to some fraudulent charges.
Now you've made me nervous about updating my Patreon account with the new info...
I have to admit I haven't sold much on there but itch.io is still my favorite of the non-Valve store fronts. I like the fact that it's self publishing and it the tool set for creating and managing your store page are pretty nice and straight forward to use.
Sunday, December 13, 2015 - 15:33
The number has been bouncing around quite a bit lately.
I've also noticed that the number on OGA doesn't always match the number on the paetron site.
Although, today they do match and are low :(
Let's hope it's just some kind of temporary glitch out, like paetrons needing to update their credit card infos or something...
Friday, December 11, 2015 - 15:08
> This is one of the things I've wondered about. I stick the gpl.txt if required into my archive, but is this sufficient for a device where even though it's in the package, lack of root privileges means the users can't view that...?
Yeah, I've wondered the same thing myself. It seems to fit the letter of the license. In fact, even if it was not sufficient, I would probably want to include the gpl.txt in the package anyway, since the license clearly reads that you must include it. But at the same time, it does seem to miss the spirit of the thing. The GPL faq actually gives pretty clear voice to their intent that end users be able to read the license:
But then making sure users can read the full version of the text from within your app, I don't know, seems a bit redundant. I guess you could just have it appear in full at the end of your credits or legal screens....
> I also typically put a link in my apps to a help page which includes the CC URLs and a link to the GPL (but not the full text), but in some cases this is an online web page - I have wondered if this is fine for CC licences at least (the help page is typically included in the archive too, but again, the user generally can't access that on a non-rooted mobile device).
As long as the URL is readable, I think that's ok. I mean I don't thing it matters if the user can't directly click on it and be taken to the web site, if that's what you're asking.
Based on the above discussion in this post, it seems just a link the CC web page for the license is explicitly enough for the CC licenses. But based on the above link to the GPL faq, it is explicitly not enough for the GPL.
Should be fine. You may also want to toss a post up on the submission page just to let Sharm know you found the work useful. Not strictly required but I'll be she'd be glad to hear it. :)
I had a go at explaining this in lamens terms in my re-work of the site faq/docs:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
Here's the language about share-alike for CC-SA-3.0:
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-SA-3.0)
Derivative works inlcude modifications of the original work, but do not include entire projects or games which merely use the work in it's original form.
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 release any derivative works as CC-SA 3.0.
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 they make under the same license.
Does that help clarify things at all? Curious if it helps because the goal of my effort on this is to make the site docs/faqs more clear for people not yet steeped in license babble. :)
looks awesome!
If you're looking for nit-picky stylistic feedback, I guess one could say the bricks, stones and roof tiles from your set do look a little 'clean' relative to Surt's stuff.
But again, that's being picky, the tiles themselves look great! :)
I think this what the tags system is supposed to cover.
There was a pretty good discussion recently on how to improve the tag system, but I'm not sure if anything came of it. :(
thanks! I'll have to check out the forums, and make a point to follow a few more devs on there!
@claudeb: is there a community over there? wondering if I missed some forums or something, I thought it was just a store front...
> This may have something to do with the Patreon hack
Hadn't thought of that, but come to think of it, I just had to cancel my card due to some fraudulent charges.
Now you've made me nervous about updating my Patreon account with the new info...
http://capbros.itch.io/
Our banner isn't nearly as cool as tinyworld's :)
I have to admit I haven't sold much on there but itch.io is still my favorite of the non-Valve store fronts. I like the fact that it's self publishing and it the tool set for creating and managing your store page are pretty nice and straight forward to use.
The number has been bouncing around quite a bit lately.
I've also noticed that the number on OGA doesn't always match the number on the paetron site.
Although, today they do match and are low :(
Let's hope it's just some kind of temporary glitch out, like paetrons needing to update their credit card infos or something...
> This is one of the things I've wondered about. I stick the gpl.txt if required into my archive, but is this sufficient for a device where even though it's in the package, lack of root privileges means the users can't view that...?
Yeah, I've wondered the same thing myself. It seems to fit the letter of the license. In fact, even if it was not sufficient, I would probably want to include the gpl.txt in the package anyway, since the license clearly reads that you must include it. But at the same time, it does seem to miss the spirit of the thing. The GPL faq actually gives pretty clear voice to their intent that end users be able to read the license:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyMustIInclude
But then making sure users can read the full version of the text from within your app, I don't know, seems a bit redundant. I guess you could just have it appear in full at the end of your credits or legal screens....
> I also typically put a link in my apps to a help page which includes the CC URLs and a link to the GPL (but not the full text), but in some cases this is an online web page - I have wondered if this is fine for CC licences at least (the help page is typically included in the archive too, but again, the user generally can't access that on a non-rooted mobile device).
As long as the URL is readable, I think that's ok. I mean I don't thing it matters if the user can't directly click on it and be taken to the web site, if that's what you're asking.
Based on the above discussion in this post, it seems just a link the CC web page for the license is explicitly enough for the CC licenses. But based on the above link to the GPL faq, it is explicitly not enough for the GPL.
Yes, something to the effect of:
This game uses art from the work '16x16 Snowy Town Tiles' by Sharm, available at: http://opengameart.org/content/16x16-snowy-town-tiles and used under terms of the CC-BY-3.0 license, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 for the complete license terms and details.
Should be fine. You may also want to toss a post up on the submission page just to let Sharm know you found the work useful. Not strictly required but I'll be she'd be glad to hear it. :)
Pages