Andrewj: No, we did not change the rules. But the issue of compatibility is not necessarily our rule in the first place... if you're using CC BY-SA / GPLv3 works in a larger combined work (and the liberated pixel cup assets are as such) it is probably the case that any other free-as-in-freedom licensed stuff will have to be compatibly licensed with one of them... and that's less our rule than the rule of the way this licensing stuff works itself. So technically we did not change the rules, but if you're using LPC artwork, the form is still "in effect" correct. I can do these two things: I'll ask BartK what we should do about possibly changing the form wording (not sure if that's a good idea or not) and if you were working on a project and were using an incompatibly licensed existing free-as-in-freedom licensed set of assets, if you can ping me in #liberatedpixelcup on freenode tomorrow (sunday the 29th) or Monday (the 30th) I'll see if we can look at what other resources might be available.
Sorry... one of the goals of the LPC is to help people better understand licensing, and it's clear we did a poor job in this case. I'll consider that my own fault.
caeles: you are right, the "or later" should not be added to the assets side (but should be on the code side)... I'll ask BartK to remove that bit. of phrasing. For now, you have my permission to submit with that checkbox assuming that bit is already going to be removed. My bad.
Great! Look forward to seeing the entry. Also, keep in mind: you are welcome to release your code under the WTFPL, but you should also dual license with GPLv3 or later (effectively, that will mean that this is the WTFPL since you can "pick" the license and WTFPL is more permissive, but this is a requirement of the contest). It would be good for you to check in the license files with your repo.
It's a very tricky thing to answer. Code and artwork tend to be treated as different layers historically, unless there's strong intermingling in files of both (think levels with scripting, artwork, etc). We don't encourage the use of LPC assets with proprietary games, though you might be able to (ask individual artists or a lawyer if you want clear legal advice). At the very least though, if you mix your artwork/content with LPC artwork/content, you'll have to recipicorally license your stuff, ideally under both the GPL and CC BY-SA 3.0 (though technically releasing under only one is required).
But I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. :)
Regardless of that legal interpretation, out of respect for the intent of the copyright holders, we would recommend that you make your project free and open source until such time as the art can be replaced.
wulax: As I said on IRC, I think the style of the horse is phenomenal as is the rest of your work... well cone. pennomi is right though, the perspective is off. The deer is a great example of the perspective done right on a quadruped animal. I think it should be very possible to make the appropriate adjustments.
http://opengameart.org/lpc-ubuntu.7z is the proper link.
Also: what's the password for the lpc user?
Andrewj: No, we did not change the rules. But the issue of compatibility is not necessarily our rule in the first place... if you're using CC BY-SA / GPLv3 works in a larger combined work (and the liberated pixel cup assets are as such) it is probably the case that any other free-as-in-freedom licensed stuff will have to be compatibly licensed with one of them... and that's less our rule than the rule of the way this licensing stuff works itself. So technically we did not change the rules, but if you're using LPC artwork, the form is still "in effect" correct. I can do these two things: I'll ask BartK what we should do about possibly changing the form wording (not sure if that's a good idea or not) and if you were working on a project and were using an incompatibly licensed existing free-as-in-freedom licensed set of assets, if you can ping me in #liberatedpixelcup on freenode tomorrow (sunday the 29th) or Monday (the 30th) I'll see if we can look at what other resources might be available.
Sorry... one of the goals of the LPC is to help people better understand licensing, and it's clear we did a poor job in this case. I'll consider that my own fault.
caeles: you are right, the "or later" should not be added to the assets side (but should be on the code side)... I'll ask BartK to remove that bit. of phrasing. For now, you have my permission to submit with that checkbox assuming that bit is already going to be removed. My bad.
Holy crap... these are amazing!
Instead of putting it in LICENSE.md I'd just do this:
$ wget http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
And check that in.
... I think we should probably put out a blogpost with clearer instructions on how to do licensing properly. I'll try to get that together shortly.
Hey hey,
Great! Look forward to seeing the entry. Also, keep in mind: you are welcome to release your code under the WTFPL, but you should also dual license with GPLv3 or later (effectively, that will mean that this is the WTFPL since you can "pick" the license and WTFPL is more permissive, but this is a requirement of the contest). It would be good for you to check in the license files with your repo.
Looking forward to your entry, and good luck!
It's a very tricky thing to answer. Code and artwork tend to be treated as different layers historically, unless there's strong intermingling in files of both (think levels with scripting, artwork, etc). We don't encourage the use of LPC assets with proprietary games, though you might be able to (ask individual artists or a lawyer if you want clear legal advice). At the very least though, if you mix your artwork/content with LPC artwork/content, you'll have to recipicorally license your stuff, ideally under both the GPL and CC BY-SA 3.0 (though technically releasing under only one is required).
But I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. :)
Regardless of that legal interpretation, out of respect for the intent of the copyright holders, we would recommend that you make your project free and open source until such time as the art can be replaced.
wulax: As I said on IRC, I think the style of the horse is phenomenal as is the rest of your work... well cone. pennomi is right though, the perspective is off. The deer is a great example of the perspective done right on a quadruped animal. I think it should be very possible to make the appropriate adjustments.
Loving the updates from everyone. mind == blown.
That looks awesome! Well done!
Also, yay for .xcf!
I think if you run something on a recent stable release of Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, or Trisquel, you'll be fine.
I was actually the one who requested them ;)
Looks great; thanks! Will integrate!
Pages