@bart: Would be glad to take a stab at drafting updates for the docs. I think synching/merging the two docs into one is probably the biggest task. If it's alright, I'll leave that for last, and maybe just tackle the other changes one by one. Seems like maybe the best way rather than dumping a HUGE text blob here and fielding feedback on so many changes all at once.
@bart and caeles:
re: licenses for preview images...
Yeah, I hadn't thought of a case like this where you are making a work explicitly to work with another work that maybe licensed differently. Although, strictly speaking this is a case where you might like to include other work in the preview, I don't think it's a case where it's absolutely required. I think most people would take your word that the set worked with LPC sprites. And indeed, anyone whose working with LPC stuff could probably quickly eyeball it and judge for themselves if it would work with the set or not.
And if you look at the submission it well highlights the issues raised by this kind of preview. You (caeles) did the right thing and meticuoulsy sited where the non-submission work came from and what the license(s) for it was, but darn if that doesn't make for a dense blob of 'Notes' and 'Attribution' text. It's easy to see how:
a) not every submitter is going to have the wherewithal to site preview inclusions this well
b) this makes searching the site more onerous. Search for CC-BY work, see something you like? Ok great, now go parse the notes and attribution section to make sure what you liked in the preview is actually part of the submission and licensed the same way...
I'd also just say generally that unless you put a giant blinking notice up there people are going to assume that what's in the preview is in the submission and it's covered under the same license. It maybe wrong but I think it's a pretty logical assumption to make.
If there preview is not under the same license as the submission, then what license it is under?
It can't be no license. It can't be copyright the submitter, he/she may not have the right to copyright the images (as in caeles case). Should we make submitters explicitly agree to grant OGA distribution rights for the preview when they submit? This is how the commercial store fronts (Steam, etc) work. But again, as in caeles case, submitter may not have right to do that.
Re: deleted submissions, we might just be stuck. If the preview image was not covered by the submission license (and for older submissions you'd have to assume not since it is not explicitly part of the guidelines now, meaning you cannot assume the submitter meant to license the preview the same), then how can OGA know it has the right to re-distribute the preview at all after it has been deleted?
If you want to avoid this discussion and keep it grey, how about:
1) A explicit and strong recommendation that preview images contain only art/work from the actual submission. I do think this is covered by the existing langauge in spirit, but I think it'd be a good idea to state it explicitly.
2) a requirement that if the preview does contain work not in the submission, that work should be noted and credited properly in the notes section.
3) a clear statement in the faq/site docs that preview images are not part of the submission and not covered by the submission's license
4) a note to the same effect by/under the preview image itself
> Flagging license issues is something I really hate having to do
Totally agree here. Sorry if I am coming off all law and order here. Not my intent at all. In fact, the hope would be that by clarifying a few of the rules (and making them more prominent in the submission process), we could actually avoid future license flags by helping submitters understand potential issues upfront.
Finally, I must fess up, that I realize my own Instant Dungeon! art pack submission contains work from outside the submission :( The preview is just a few screen shots from the game, it's almost all art from the submission, but if you look on the top edges you'll see some text written with the 'Bold Boxy Fat' font. What can I say, I guess that makes me a hypocrite, guilty as charged! :)
@protomank: That's pretty cool! A testament to the power of localization! I can tell you, the SMS lifestyle was a lonley one here in the US. But no complaints, Sega gave us plenty of games to play by ourselves ;)
@Hungry: The art is not from the game, just done in a similar style/look. You are free to use this work commercialy provided you abide by the terms of the selected license (see the License(s) section above). Since there are more than one licenses selected for this work, you may choose the one which best suits your needs. For commercial use, you'll probably want CC-BY 3.0. Be aware that the CC-BY license contains a restriction against distributing the work with any form of DRM, this may impact what platforms you can distribute any commercial work using this art on (ie. no IOS, XBL, PSN, etc).
Saturday, November 7, 2015 - 21:31
> Good work @capbros, I think these are very thoughtful changes!
thanks, but I can't take too much credit for all this. It's mostly just my paraphrasing of a lot of good ideas suggested by others across several different forum discussions. :)
> I didn't even KNOW there were submission guidelines until after I had submitted a couple pieces of art.
wow, yeah, so a case in point. I think someone suggested once that submitters should have to view the guidelines and check an 'I read and understand the guidelines' box on their first submission.
> I also think the only really useful parts of the guidelines are the first two sections
> ("General", and "Copyright and Trademarks"). The rest seems relatively trivial and/or unenforced.
I don't know, I think the other stuff isn't bad to have around. Maybe it's not all critical info, but I could see some of it helping folks out, especially artists that are just getting started and maybe not too aware of of the common conventions for how people do things.
> because there actually is language explicitly PERMITTING this.
oh wow, you're right, that's wild!
Although, I guess that works because WTFPL is such a permissive license. Almost an anti-license in a way.
I have to say, I think it'd be better to enumerate the few cases that are acceptable to the site than open it up for submitters to police themselves. It just opens up a whole grey area of potential issues. It has the potential of introducing improperly licensed work since not everyone agrees on what licenses are and aren't 'compatible' with one another. It degrades the integrity of 'by license' search results, since you must double check that any results are not improperly 'relicensed' works. It risks pissing off an original artist who finds their work here under a license they didn't intend (whether it's compatible or not). And when you consider that any 'relicensed' submission is by definition a third-party submission w/o the original authors explicit approval, you are talking about a slim minority of submissions, so I don't know that allowing them is particularly worth the potential troubles.
>> Add explicit mention of anti-DRM clause
> I think this is VERY important, I definitely did not know or understand that when
> I first started visiting the site.
Somewhere there is a forum topic on this subject and it is literally amazing to see how many artists, many long time and prolific contributers, were saying the same thing. It's just a really easy thing to miss. Although, in fairness, I think the CC gang have tried to make it more explicit in their more recent docs.
> I think it would be better to compress your DRM paragraph down to one or two (tops)
> sentences appended to both the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA descriptions. Something like
hmm... I think your wording works pretty well. Actually seems a bit more even-handed than what I'd proposed, which is a goog thing, as the goal isn't to knock CC-BY/SA just to make sure submitters (and downloaders!) know about the DRM stuff. Also, I agree shorter is better, but I do think it's nice to name a few names. Otherwise, the next logical question is 'Ok what game distribution networks impose DRM?' So maybe:
Furthermore, you may not restrict the ability of those who receive a CC-BY(-SA) work to exercise rights granted under the license. Note that many popular game distribution networks (ie. Apple iOS, Xbox Live, Sony PSN) impose some form of 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM) which is incompatible with this requirement and still others may or may not use DRM depending on how a particular game is pacakged (ex. Steam, Google Android).
Although, that's still a bit roundabout. I do like the fact that the other wording is very explicit about what it all means, 'eg. In practice, this means...'
> I would add a requirement that whether they obtain permission or not, they explicitly declare it.
I agree. I know there's a resistance to adding new hoops to the submit process, but the potential for trouble with 3rd party submissions is high enough that I think adding that button might be worth it.
Saturday, November 7, 2015 - 07:29
@Evert: You make an interesting point about wanting to see the spritesheets or whatnot without jumping through a lot of hoops. And you're right, technically the preview image should handle that, but it's doesn't always and it's not really fair to expect people to be great at creating previews that showcase their work. Plus with larger sets it's often impractical to try and include everything in the preview.
@DezrasDragons: That's an intereting point about the blender icons and whatnot. Based on a prior discussion, I'd made the suggestion that the site faq be updated to explicitly state that preview images are covered by the same license as the submission:
I still think this is the right idea but you raise a good point with the blender icons, etc. in previews for 3D stuff. Generally, I think putting the preview under the submissions license makes the most sense. For one thing, it's the best way to make sure that the site itself is not distributing copyright or incorrectly licensed works via the preview images. Secondly, I can't think of a good case where a preview image /needs/ to include works outside of the submission. All the same, I can't think of a good solution to the blender screen grab issue, other than to ask submitters to crop that stuff out. I'd love to say nobody really cares about a few obviously not part of the submission icons around the edge of a screen shot, but there was a fellow on here who was very into ripping exactly that sort of stuff :(
@MikeeUSA: Downloading the whole page is an interesting idea, but doesn't that start to take up a lot of space after awhile? Database backup is an interesting idea also, but probably not practical given the size of the archive. What about a tool that let you download an archive for a collection, similar to the current tool that let's you pull down just the license and attribution notices for a collection?
@all: I guess another approach would be the add a link for the text of the licenses under the 'Files:' list for each submission. That way right where you are looking to download the file, you are also looking at the full copies of the licenses. This would make it more like browsing a source code repository in github or some other HTTP driven interface. I guess it might seem redundant with the license icons already being on the page, but I think it would help reinforce the connection between the work and the license. It would also put it in 'you can't miss it' category. I don't think we're in the same category as deviant art, where the license info is as buried as you can imagine, but I do think the current page layout makes it very possible puruse the site, grabbing files without any knowledge of the license stuff. You do see questions sometimes asking things like 'may I use this?', 'what are the terms of use?' etc. from newer users. Putting the license link right next to the download link might help.
Finally:
> We had an individual who cut commercial game art out of a CC-BY-SA screenshot from an indie
> game and post it here. While that is legal to do, it's incredibly disrespectful of the artist,
> and we won't archive it here.
Thanks bart! You weren't around when that went down, so it's good to hear it coming straight from you :)
That said, have you had a chance to look over my summary of the faq/guideline changes stemming from that discussion:
I know it's quite a list, but the incident did reveal some ambiguities in the current set of docs and I do think it would be a shame if the only thing to come out of the whole affair was the loss of a community member, albiet a justly removed one.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - 11:32
Going to guess that by 'grid' of sprites, your instructor just means a single image file with multiple sprites in it laid out in a grid fashion.
Good news for you is that describes just about everything in the 2D Art section of this site, so I'd say do a little poking and I'm sure you'll gather 2 examples pretty quickly.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - 11:29
wow! I guess you could say you 'mastered' the console scene with the Master System then? :)
Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - 15:15
> Just wanted to say that I'm actually completely on board with archiving submissions
> with their respective license files
yay! ok, I'll try to stop pestering about it then! ;)
re: all the issues said idea presents, I totally understand. It seems like exactly the kind of thing that's easy to suggest but very hard to do, esp. considering the volume of existing submisions you have.
Not to drag you into a technical discussion on how to implement such a feature, but a quick thought about the archive issues: what about just dynamically building the archive everytime you serve up the file? So you click on 'cool_sprites.png' and you get handed (via redirects and magic) 'SUBMISSION_NAME_by_AUTHOR.zip' which contains 'cool_sprites.png', 'ReadMe.txt' w/ submission description and notes in there, and CC-BY-3.0.txt, etc.
In essence, you'd be throwing CPU at the problem. But actually given the size of the existing archive, that might not be the worst solution. I'm guessing just the initial run of archiving the existing content would take days to complete. So maybe, archiving bit by bit as requested is actually not the worst idea.
I'd also add that archives within archives isn't that big a deal. Yes it's silly, but it's not that big a hassle for users to deal with and it wouldn't be the first time it's been done ;)
ok, like I said, I don't want to drag you into a big discussion on this, since i know you are a busy enough guy as it is, so I'll just shut up now.
Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - 11:19
I think caeles admitted mistaking the GPL icon as an ad was an exagerated example, I think his point was just that there is nothing that explicitly links the work with the license boxes. I kinda get where he is coming from. From an extremely cautious/paranoid viewpoint, you might not want to use art from the site because someone could try to come after you later, feigning ingnorance of how the site works or what the license icons represent. I don't know if such a claim would pass the smell test, but I could see where as a hypothetical it's possible.
I do think there is some room for people to miss the license section entirely. I do occasionally see posts asking about what the license for a work is. I don't know how to combat this. Maybe as a layout thing, you could put the license boxes closer to the download links (or the other way around).
And I've advocated this before, so I know I'm being a broken record here, but I personally think all work on the site should be distributed in archive format along with a copy of all applicable licenses and copyright/attribtution instructions. That way, if you download the art, you get a copy of the license with it. That's how it's done with source code and it's certainly withstood the test of time there.
Finally, I don't know if I would encourage people to put anything beyond attribution instructions in the 'notes' section. First, it seems silly to have you check boxes for which license and then also manually type them in. Also, it's always hard to get any kind of standardization for things that get typed into a text box, so my guess is each submitter would have his/her own way of phrasing the license grant. Finally, I fear submitters would get confused and see it as a place to add additional license restrictions/notices, which, aside from being forbidden by most the licenses, would make searching the site by license type difficult if not impossible. This is actually something that already happens from time to time with the existing notes field.
Monday, November 2, 2015 - 13:57
awesome!
@surt: You've done some amazing things with that SMS palette surt, any chance you were an SMS kid?
Got some serious time on Aztec Adventure and Zillion in my past. :)
Just a note, to keep things organized, I've decided to break the suggested changes up into a few parts.
First part here:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
@bart: Would be glad to take a stab at drafting updates for the docs. I think synching/merging the two docs into one is probably the biggest task. If it's alright, I'll leave that for last, and maybe just tackle the other changes one by one. Seems like maybe the best way rather than dumping a HUGE text blob here and fielding feedback on so many changes all at once.
@bart and caeles:
re: licenses for preview images...
Yeah, I hadn't thought of a case like this where you are making a work explicitly to work with another work that maybe licensed differently. Although, strictly speaking this is a case where you might like to include other work in the preview, I don't think it's a case where it's absolutely required. I think most people would take your word that the set worked with LPC sprites. And indeed, anyone whose working with LPC stuff could probably quickly eyeball it and judge for themselves if it would work with the set or not.
And if you look at the submission it well highlights the issues raised by this kind of preview. You (caeles) did the right thing and meticuoulsy sited where the non-submission work came from and what the license(s) for it was, but darn if that doesn't make for a dense blob of 'Notes' and 'Attribution' text. It's easy to see how:
a) not every submitter is going to have the wherewithal to site preview inclusions this well
b) this makes searching the site more onerous. Search for CC-BY work, see something you like? Ok great, now go parse the notes and attribution section to make sure what you liked in the preview is actually part of the submission and licensed the same way...
I'd also just say generally that unless you put a giant blinking notice up there people are going to assume that what's in the preview is in the submission and it's covered under the same license. It maybe wrong but I think it's a pretty logical assumption to make.
If there preview is not under the same license as the submission, then what license it is under?
It can't be no license. It can't be copyright the submitter, he/she may not have the right to copyright the images (as in caeles case). Should we make submitters explicitly agree to grant OGA distribution rights for the preview when they submit? This is how the commercial store fronts (Steam, etc) work. But again, as in caeles case, submitter may not have right to do that.
Re: deleted submissions, we might just be stuck. If the preview image was not covered by the submission license (and for older submissions you'd have to assume not since it is not explicitly part of the guidelines now, meaning you cannot assume the submitter meant to license the preview the same), then how can OGA know it has the right to re-distribute the preview at all after it has been deleted?
If you want to avoid this discussion and keep it grey, how about:
1) A explicit and strong recommendation that preview images contain only art/work from the actual submission. I do think this is covered by the existing langauge in spirit, but I think it'd be a good idea to state it explicitly.
2) a requirement that if the preview does contain work not in the submission, that work should be noted and credited properly in the notes section.
3) a clear statement in the faq/site docs that preview images are not part of the submission and not covered by the submission's license
4) a note to the same effect by/under the preview image itself
> Flagging license issues is something I really hate having to do
Totally agree here. Sorry if I am coming off all law and order here. Not my intent at all. In fact, the hope would be that by clarifying a few of the rules (and making them more prominent in the submission process), we could actually avoid future license flags by helping submitters understand potential issues upfront.
Finally, I must fess up, that I realize my own Instant Dungeon! art pack submission contains work from outside the submission :( The preview is just a few screen shots from the game, it's almost all art from the submission, but if you look on the top edges you'll see some text written with the 'Bold Boxy Fat' font. What can I say, I guess that makes me a hypocrite, guilty as charged! :)
@protomank: That's pretty cool! A testament to the power of localization! I can tell you, the SMS lifestyle was a lonley one here in the US. But no complaints, Sega gave us plenty of games to play by ourselves ;)
@Hungry: The art is not from the game, just done in a similar style/look. You are free to use this work commercialy provided you abide by the terms of the selected license (see the License(s) section above). Since there are more than one licenses selected for this work, you may choose the one which best suits your needs. For commercial use, you'll probably want CC-BY 3.0. Be aware that the CC-BY license contains a restriction against distributing the work with any form of DRM, this may impact what platforms you can distribute any commercial work using this art on (ie. no IOS, XBL, PSN, etc).
> Good work @capbros, I think these are very thoughtful changes!
thanks, but I can't take too much credit for all this. It's mostly just my paraphrasing of a lot of good ideas suggested by others across several different forum discussions. :)
> I didn't even KNOW there were submission guidelines until after I had submitted a couple pieces of art.
wow, yeah, so a case in point. I think someone suggested once that submitters should have to view the guidelines and check an 'I read and understand the guidelines' box on their first submission.
> I also think the only really useful parts of the guidelines are the first two sections
> ("General", and "Copyright and Trademarks"). The rest seems relatively trivial and/or unenforced.
I don't know, I think the other stuff isn't bad to have around. Maybe it's not all critical info, but I could see some of it helping folks out, especially artists that are just getting started and maybe not too aware of of the common conventions for how people do things.
> because there actually is language explicitly PERMITTING this.
oh wow, you're right, that's wild!
Although, I guess that works because WTFPL is such a permissive license. Almost an anti-license in a way.
I have to say, I think it'd be better to enumerate the few cases that are acceptable to the site than open it up for submitters to police themselves. It just opens up a whole grey area of potential issues. It has the potential of introducing improperly licensed work since not everyone agrees on what licenses are and aren't 'compatible' with one another. It degrades the integrity of 'by license' search results, since you must double check that any results are not improperly 'relicensed' works. It risks pissing off an original artist who finds their work here under a license they didn't intend (whether it's compatible or not). And when you consider that any 'relicensed' submission is by definition a third-party submission w/o the original authors explicit approval, you are talking about a slim minority of submissions, so I don't know that allowing them is particularly worth the potential troubles.
>> Add explicit mention of anti-DRM clause
> I think this is VERY important, I definitely did not know or understand that when
> I first started visiting the site.
Somewhere there is a forum topic on this subject and it is literally amazing to see how many artists, many long time and prolific contributers, were saying the same thing. It's just a really easy thing to miss. Although, in fairness, I think the CC gang have tried to make it more explicit in their more recent docs.
> I think it would be better to compress your DRM paragraph down to one or two (tops)
> sentences appended to both the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA descriptions. Something like
hmm... I think your wording works pretty well. Actually seems a bit more even-handed than what I'd proposed, which is a goog thing, as the goal isn't to knock CC-BY/SA just to make sure submitters (and downloaders!) know about the DRM stuff. Also, I agree shorter is better, but I do think it's nice to name a few names. Otherwise, the next logical question is 'Ok what game distribution networks impose DRM?' So maybe:
Furthermore, you may not restrict the ability of those who receive a CC-BY(-SA) work to exercise rights granted under the license. Note that many popular game distribution networks (ie. Apple iOS, Xbox Live, Sony PSN) impose some form of 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM) which is incompatible with this requirement and still others may or may not use DRM depending on how a particular game is pacakged (ex. Steam, Google Android).
Although, that's still a bit roundabout. I do like the fact that the other wording is very explicit about what it all means, 'eg. In practice, this means...'
> I would add a requirement that whether they obtain permission or not, they explicitly declare it.
I agree. I know there's a resistance to adding new hoops to the submit process, but the potential for trouble with 3rd party submissions is high enough that I think adding that button might be worth it.
@Evert: You make an interesting point about wanting to see the spritesheets or whatnot without jumping through a lot of hoops. And you're right, technically the preview image should handle that, but it's doesn't always and it's not really fair to expect people to be great at creating previews that showcase their work. Plus with larger sets it's often impractical to try and include everything in the preview.
@DezrasDragons: That's an intereting point about the blender icons and whatnot. Based on a prior discussion, I'd made the suggestion that the site faq be updated to explicitly state that preview images are covered by the same license as the submission:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
I still think this is the right idea but you raise a good point with the blender icons, etc. in previews for 3D stuff. Generally, I think putting the preview under the submissions license makes the most sense. For one thing, it's the best way to make sure that the site itself is not distributing copyright or incorrectly licensed works via the preview images. Secondly, I can't think of a good case where a preview image /needs/ to include works outside of the submission. All the same, I can't think of a good solution to the blender screen grab issue, other than to ask submitters to crop that stuff out. I'd love to say nobody really cares about a few obviously not part of the submission icons around the edge of a screen shot, but there was a fellow on here who was very into ripping exactly that sort of stuff :(
@MikeeUSA: Downloading the whole page is an interesting idea, but doesn't that start to take up a lot of space after awhile? Database backup is an interesting idea also, but probably not practical given the size of the archive. What about a tool that let you download an archive for a collection, similar to the current tool that let's you pull down just the license and attribution notices for a collection?
@all: I guess another approach would be the add a link for the text of the licenses under the 'Files:' list for each submission. That way right where you are looking to download the file, you are also looking at the full copies of the licenses. This would make it more like browsing a source code repository in github or some other HTTP driven interface. I guess it might seem redundant with the license icons already being on the page, but I think it would help reinforce the connection between the work and the license. It would also put it in 'you can't miss it' category. I don't think we're in the same category as deviant art, where the license info is as buried as you can imagine, but I do think the current page layout makes it very possible puruse the site, grabbing files without any knowledge of the license stuff. You do see questions sometimes asking things like 'may I use this?', 'what are the terms of use?' etc. from newer users. Putting the license link right next to the download link might help.
Finally:
> We had an individual who cut commercial game art out of a CC-BY-SA screenshot from an indie
> game and post it here. While that is legal to do, it's incredibly disrespectful of the artist,
> and we won't archive it here.
Thanks bart! You weren't around when that went down, so it's good to hear it coming straight from you :)
That said, have you had a chance to look over my summary of the faq/guideline changes stemming from that discussion:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
I know it's quite a list, but the incident did reveal some ambiguities in the current set of docs and I do think it would be a shame if the only thing to come out of the whole affair was the loss of a community member, albiet a justly removed one.
Going to guess that by 'grid' of sprites, your instructor just means a single image file with multiple sprites in it laid out in a grid fashion.
Good news for you is that describes just about everything in the 2D Art section of this site, so I'd say do a little poking and I'm sure you'll gather 2 examples pretty quickly.
wow! I guess you could say you 'mastered' the console scene with the Master System then? :)
> Just wanted to say that I'm actually completely on board with archiving submissions
> with their respective license files
yay! ok, I'll try to stop pestering about it then! ;)
re: all the issues said idea presents, I totally understand. It seems like exactly the kind of thing that's easy to suggest but very hard to do, esp. considering the volume of existing submisions you have.
Not to drag you into a technical discussion on how to implement such a feature, but a quick thought about the archive issues: what about just dynamically building the archive everytime you serve up the file? So you click on 'cool_sprites.png' and you get handed (via redirects and magic) 'SUBMISSION_NAME_by_AUTHOR.zip' which contains 'cool_sprites.png', 'ReadMe.txt' w/ submission description and notes in there, and CC-BY-3.0.txt, etc.
In essence, you'd be throwing CPU at the problem. But actually given the size of the existing archive, that might not be the worst solution. I'm guessing just the initial run of archiving the existing content would take days to complete. So maybe, archiving bit by bit as requested is actually not the worst idea.
I'd also add that archives within archives isn't that big a deal. Yes it's silly, but it's not that big a hassle for users to deal with and it wouldn't be the first time it's been done ;)
ok, like I said, I don't want to drag you into a big discussion on this, since i know you are a busy enough guy as it is, so I'll just shut up now.
I think caeles admitted mistaking the GPL icon as an ad was an exagerated example, I think his point was just that there is nothing that explicitly links the work with the license boxes. I kinda get where he is coming from. From an extremely cautious/paranoid viewpoint, you might not want to use art from the site because someone could try to come after you later, feigning ingnorance of how the site works or what the license icons represent. I don't know if such a claim would pass the smell test, but I could see where as a hypothetical it's possible.
I do think there is some room for people to miss the license section entirely. I do occasionally see posts asking about what the license for a work is. I don't know how to combat this. Maybe as a layout thing, you could put the license boxes closer to the download links (or the other way around).
And I've advocated this before, so I know I'm being a broken record here, but I personally think all work on the site should be distributed in archive format along with a copy of all applicable licenses and copyright/attribtution instructions. That way, if you download the art, you get a copy of the license with it. That's how it's done with source code and it's certainly withstood the test of time there.
Finally, I don't know if I would encourage people to put anything beyond attribution instructions in the 'notes' section. First, it seems silly to have you check boxes for which license and then also manually type them in. Also, it's always hard to get any kind of standardization for things that get typed into a text box, so my guess is each submitter would have his/her own way of phrasing the license grant. Finally, I fear submitters would get confused and see it as a place to add additional license restrictions/notices, which, aside from being forbidden by most the licenses, would make searching the site by license type difficult if not impossible. This is actually something that already happens from time to time with the existing notes field.
awesome!
@surt: You've done some amazing things with that SMS palette surt, any chance you were an SMS kid?
Got some serious time on Aztec Adventure and Zillion in my past. :)
Pages