Apologies if this is a stupid question - but would the original LPC assets ( https://opengameart.org/content/liberated-pixel-cup-lpc-base-assets-spri... ) satisfy the requirements to get this tag? It's unclear to me if this is meant to be guidelines to capture and document the design of the original LPC assets, or if it's for some kind of next generation, going beyond what the original LPC assets had.
If the former (i.e., the original would qualify for the tag), then "LPC verified" seems best to me. "Refined" seems confusing to me, and implies a difference to the original. I appreciate it's a refinement of the guidelines, but remember these are tags for the art, so if I'm searching I'll be thinking "why are some of the LPC art, including the original, tagged as refined?"
If the latter (original LPC wouldn't qualify), then "LPC refined" sounds good. Although I think there's still the possible issue of a fork using the LPC name without the original artists' endorsements. Yes, there are no trademark issues here unlike Minecraft (or Firefox, for an open source example). But I note sometimes in open source, new names are created for forks, not because it's required legally, but to avoid confusion or avoid implying endorsement from the original. But I suppose "refined" is at least better than "NG" (which implies a better, or official next version), so maybe that's okay.
For NASA hubble images, https://hubblesite.org/copyright says "Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and material on this site may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract." (Although acknowledgement is requested.) I clicked a few hubble images on that site, and the "permissions" links to that same URL https://hubblesite.org/copyright .
The wording at https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html seems rather confusing, saying NASA images etc are "generally are not subject to copyright in the United States" and giving allowed examples such as news outlets and text-book authors, but this is under the non-commercial section (even though such usage would be commercial!) Although the commercial section seems to cover other issues like logos, employees etc maybe?
As noted above, the copyright is different if Hubble images have come from the ESA (the catch being, even if images from NASA were in the public domain, not all images from Hubble are from NASA).
In general I'd say you should check the source of the particular image rather than assuming anything blanket from NASA (because e.g. it might have had non-NASA involvement or some other reason why copyright applies).
These look great! I think the LPC assets have really grown over the years in providing a good compatible set of game images, including lots of flexibility for the characters, and it's great to see future developments.
I did have some comments about the licencing - from the Github repository it says "Licensing is CC-by-SA 3, with a universal exception waived for DRM." and "CC-by-SA 3, DRM waived". However the OGA-BY 3.0 licence (which the assets are licenced under here) is a variation of CC-BY 3.0, not CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Also I'd say it's important to explicitly give the licence on the repository please (either name+link, or even the full licence text), so it's absolutely clear what the licence is. I see BlueCarrot16 has said something similar in https://github.com/ElizaWy/LPC/issues/1 , although I'd go further and say it's better in my opinion to explicitly use the same licence as https://static.opengameart.org/OGA-BY-3.0.txt rather than creating some new custom licence - note that OGA-BY doesn't just remove the "effective technological measures" clause but also the "may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work." OGA-BY 3.0 also clarifies that you can relicence as CC-BY 3.0.
Lastly I wonder, if the relevant authors have agreed to relicence the relevant original LPC graphics, is it possible to take the chance to consider relicencing to allow later license versions? This is in relation to the recent thread about copyleft trolls ( https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/turns-out-there-are-copyleft-trolls-now ) (well, there isn't yet an OGA-BY 4.0, but allowing "or later" at least futureproofs for if an OGA-BY 4.0 is created, and in the meantime allowing CC-BY-SA 4.0 and CC-BY 4.0 would allow people to use those licences).
Sorry if it sounds like I'm making a lot of demands - but given the talk about this forming a basis of being a next generation LPC, I feel it's important to clarify the licencing.
"I don't think you need these kind of tutorials ..."
But how do you learn in the first place?
Yes, if you've already done something very similar, it works to go straight in and look up specific things when required - if you can already program for example, it's often feasible to pick up similar languages in this way. But I wouldn't recommend say a C programmer learning object orientation this way.
I've only started reading about Unity - it seems a very different style to more traditional game programming where you maybe use a library like SDL, such that it seems worth reading some material.
Now having said that, I never follow tutorials step by step - I prefer to work on something on my own. But it's still useful to read articles.
I don't see why reading tutorials means that you aren't thinking or understanding.
Seems fine as far as I can tell. Open/Free licences (such as all those on OGA) explicitly allow commercial usage.
But thanks for asking - a ridiculous situation I've faced recently with my RPG game on Google Play (which also uses Flare graphics) is a battering of (often offensive) 1 star reviews from people excusing me of "stealing" graphics from Exiled Kingdoms(!) These people evidently aren't as careful as you are in checking things out - and my game isn't even commercial. (As it happens I've neglected my game for various reasons - but stuff like that hardly gives one the incentive to carry on.)
It'll be even weirder if Flare itself launches on Google Play and faces the same.
(Assuming this is C or C++.) You can only declare arrays to be of a fixed (const) length. Also the syntax of that declaration isn't right anyway.
So for example you could declare: const int max_amount_c = 50; if you knew that was the largest a world cell could be. And then it would be: WorldObject WorldObjects[max_amount_c];
More generally you need to dynamically allocate an array and use a pointer, to allow arrays of arbitrary length.
If you're using C++, I'd recommend using something like the vector class.
This sounds like an "I want people to make my idea".
Bear in mind that these usually don't get much in the way of responses - programmers usually have plenty of their own ideas to develop. If they do look for groups to work with, it'll be where someone else is also doing the development or artwork, or where there's at least a prototype.
MMORPG are one of the most complex games to create - typical budget estimates are in the millions, it's unclear what level of funding you have for the renumeration, hosting and so on...
Unless you have a previous track record, I'd recommend starting (much) simpler :) And if you really have a game idea you want to make real, get stuck in and learn programming (it's fun!) - or you'll need to pay someone to make it.
Preview can also be useful if it's already the exact image you're after - especially for 3D models where I'm after a 2D rendering, if the preview already works, it saves having to set up Blender and render it myself. So I'd really like it so that it is included. And that's how I've been interpreting the licence info - after all, the licence is on the page, not just in the files, and the licence is per submission not per file.
Also consider that in some cases, people might not even bother downloading and looking through the files, if the preview is good enough for their needs.
If the preview isn't under the same licence, then what licence is it under? This would be an issue if someone wanted to make a mirror of the OGA content (after all, one of the benefits of open licences is making it easier to save content even if the original site disappears) - this would be a pain if the previews weren't under any licence that allowed they.
I'd say that things like logos don't belong in previews if you don't want them being open, but I appreciate that it's a pain for submissions like that already uploaded.
That looks fine, though you should also include the URLs of the relevant CC licences (or alternatively include the full licence texts, but URLs are easier).
@capbros What sources argue that Google Play and Steam enforce DRM? I believe the information for enabling DRM for Google Play is at https://developer.android.com/google/play/licensing/index.html . This does not seem to be the kind of thing that one could enable without realising. For Steam, I note there are plenty of articles listing DRM-free games on Steam.
"You must include cc-by/sa assets in a common file format that end user could easily use to open/modify the work themselves if they wanted. I mention this because it is not wholly uncommon for games to re-package assets into their own file format schemes. As an example, for textures, it's not uncommon to have some kind of build step that compresses them into some kind of a raw gl/direct format in order to speed load times. I've also seen plenty of devs that like to bundle all the files for their game into a single file with some kind of zip or otherwise compressed format. Pretty sure distributing cc-by/sa works like this would be violation of the license."
I can't see where in the licences it says this?
There is no requirement AFAIK that the recipient must be able to reconstruct or directly access the original work, otherwise that would be problematic for derivative works (e.g., distributing a rendered image that uses CC BY models or textures doesn't require inclusion of those models or textures in a common format). As you note, repackaging or converting to more suitable formats is common practice for games, so would be problematic.
I can see that argument applying to the GPL, if such things were deemed to be the "source", but CC licences having nothing like that. (Even for the GPL, there's no requirement to bundle all of the source formats with your binary distribution, instead you just have to offer it as a separate download.)
Bundling the files into a single compressed file is certainly allowed. If it wasn't, an awful lot of pages on OGA where files are bundled into a zip would be violating this.
Note, the bit about technical restrictions is specifically defined as "A technological measure is considered an ETM if circumventing it carries penalties under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, or similar international agreements." ( https://creativecommons.org/faq/ ). It's intended to address the problem that even if I'm able to get round DRM, in many countries I'd be breaking the law to do so. But I'm not breaking the law to unzip an zip file - nor does putting it in a zip stop me from redistributing. It's about preserving people's right to allow redistribution, but if the work has been transformed, the originals don't have to be supplied.
The FAQ says "Note that merely converting material into a different format that is difficult to access ... does not violate the restriction".
Unfortuately the question of whether the licence applies to the entire game is unclear for both CC BY SA and the GPL. In practice most people seem to assume that it doesn't (and it would be a right pain, especially for CC BY SA, if this was the case). I don't think it's been tested in court one way or the other.
Distribution on Google Play is fine, Google offer DRM but it is not required. (And DRM certainly isn't an issue for distrbuting Android applications elsewhere.) As far as I know, DRM is optional for Steam too.
"For example, on PC, if you distribute the works along side the executable for your game, they should be stored in a well named file and folder structure and in their native file formats (jpg, png, mp3, etc)."
This can be nice to do, but note there is no legal requirement to structure it in this way. Indeed, converting to alternative formats as required is certainl allowed under all free licence on OGA.
Apologies if this is a stupid question - but would the original LPC assets ( https://opengameart.org/content/liberated-pixel-cup-lpc-base-assets-spri... ) satisfy the requirements to get this tag? It's unclear to me if this is meant to be guidelines to capture and document the design of the original LPC assets, or if it's for some kind of next generation, going beyond what the original LPC assets had.
If the former (i.e., the original would qualify for the tag), then "LPC verified" seems best to me. "Refined" seems confusing to me, and implies a difference to the original. I appreciate it's a refinement of the guidelines, but remember these are tags for the art, so if I'm searching I'll be thinking "why are some of the LPC art, including the original, tagged as refined?"
If the latter (original LPC wouldn't qualify), then "LPC refined" sounds good. Although I think there's still the possible issue of a fork using the LPC name without the original artists' endorsements. Yes, there are no trademark issues here unlike Minecraft (or Firefox, for an open source example). But I note sometimes in open source, new names are created for forks, not because it's required legally, but to avoid confusion or avoid implying endorsement from the original. But I suppose "refined" is at least better than "NG" (which implies a better, or official next version), so maybe that's okay.
For NASA hubble images, https://hubblesite.org/copyright says "Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and material on this site may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract." (Although acknowledgement is requested.) I clicked a few hubble images on that site, and the "permissions" links to that same URL https://hubblesite.org/copyright .
The wording at https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html seems rather confusing, saying NASA images etc are "generally are not subject to copyright in the United States" and giving allowed examples such as news outlets and text-book authors, but this is under the non-commercial section (even though such usage would be commercial!) Although the commercial section seems to cover other issues like logos, employees etc maybe?
As noted above, the copyright is different if Hubble images have come from the ESA (the catch being, even if images from NASA were in the public domain, not all images from Hubble are from NASA).
In general I'd say you should check the source of the particular image rather than assuming anything blanket from NASA (because e.g. it might have had non-NASA involvement or some other reason why copyright applies).
I see the IGO licence at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/ , not something I'd come across before. It looks like a "ported" version, similar to other country-specific ports?
These look great! I think the LPC assets have really grown over the years in providing a good compatible set of game images, including lots of flexibility for the characters, and it's great to see future developments.
I did have some comments about the licencing - from the Github repository it says "Licensing is CC-by-SA 3, with a universal exception waived for DRM." and "CC-by-SA 3, DRM waived". However the OGA-BY 3.0 licence (which the assets are licenced under here) is a variation of CC-BY 3.0, not CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Also I'd say it's important to explicitly give the licence on the repository please (either name+link, or even the full licence text), so it's absolutely clear what the licence is. I see BlueCarrot16 has said something similar in https://github.com/ElizaWy/LPC/issues/1 , although I'd go further and say it's better in my opinion to explicitly use the same licence as https://static.opengameart.org/OGA-BY-3.0.txt rather than creating some new custom licence - note that OGA-BY doesn't just remove the "effective technological measures" clause but also the "may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work." OGA-BY 3.0 also clarifies that you can relicence as CC-BY 3.0.
Lastly I wonder, if the relevant authors have agreed to relicence the relevant original LPC graphics, is it possible to take the chance to consider relicencing to allow later license versions? This is in relation to the recent thread about copyleft trolls ( https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/turns-out-there-are-copyleft-trolls-now ) (well, there isn't yet an OGA-BY 4.0, but allowing "or later" at least futureproofs for if an OGA-BY 4.0 is created, and in the meantime allowing CC-BY-SA 4.0 and CC-BY 4.0 would allow people to use those licences).
Sorry if it sounds like I'm making a lot of demands - but given the talk about this forming a basis of being a next generation LPC, I feel it's important to clarify the licencing.
I've been reading http://catlikecoding.com/unity/tutorials/ .
"I don't think you need these kind of tutorials ..."
But how do you learn in the first place?
Yes, if you've already done something very similar, it works to go straight in and look up specific things when required - if you can already program for example, it's often feasible to pick up similar languages in this way. But I wouldn't recommend say a C programmer learning object orientation this way.
I've only started reading about Unity - it seems a very different style to more traditional game programming where you maybe use a library like SDL, such that it seems worth reading some material.
Now having said that, I never follow tutorials step by step - I prefer to work on something on my own. But it's still useful to read articles.
I don't see why reading tutorials means that you aren't thinking or understanding.
Seems fine as far as I can tell. Open/Free licences (such as all those on OGA) explicitly allow commercial usage.
But thanks for asking - a ridiculous situation I've faced recently with my RPG game on Google Play (which also uses Flare graphics) is a battering of (often offensive) 1 star reviews from people excusing me of "stealing" graphics from Exiled Kingdoms(!) These people evidently aren't as careful as you are in checking things out - and my game isn't even commercial. (As it happens I've neglected my game for various reasons - but stuff like that hardly gives one the incentive to carry on.)
It'll be even weirder if Flare itself launches on Google Play and faces the same.
(Assuming this is C or C++.) You can only declare arrays to be of a fixed (const) length. Also the syntax of that declaration isn't right anyway.
So for example you could declare: const int max_amount_c = 50; if you knew that was the largest a world cell could be. And then it would be: WorldObject WorldObjects[max_amount_c];
More generally you need to dynamically allocate an array and use a pointer, to allow arrays of arbitrary length.
If you're using C++, I'd recommend using something like the vector class.
This sounds like an "I want people to make my idea".
Bear in mind that these usually don't get much in the way of responses - programmers usually have plenty of their own ideas to develop. If they do look for groups to work with, it'll be where someone else is also doing the development or artwork, or where there's at least a prototype.
MMORPG are one of the most complex games to create - typical budget estimates are in the millions, it's unclear what level of funding you have for the renumeration, hosting and so on...
Unless you have a previous track record, I'd recommend starting (much) simpler :) And if you really have a game idea you want to make real, get stuck in and learn programming (it's fun!) - or you'll need to pay someone to make it.
Preview can also be useful if it's already the exact image you're after - especially for 3D models where I'm after a 2D rendering, if the preview already works, it saves having to set up Blender and render it myself. So I'd really like it so that it is included. And that's how I've been interpreting the licence info - after all, the licence is on the page, not just in the files, and the licence is per submission not per file.
Also consider that in some cases, people might not even bother downloading and looking through the files, if the preview is good enough for their needs.
If the preview isn't under the same licence, then what licence is it under? This would be an issue if someone wanted to make a mirror of the OGA content (after all, one of the benefits of open licences is making it easier to save content even if the original site disappears) - this would be a pain if the previews weren't under any licence that allowed they.
I'd say that things like logos don't belong in previews if you don't want them being open, but I appreciate that it's a pain for submissions like that already uploaded.
That looks fine, though you should also include the URLs of the relevant CC licences (or alternatively include the full licence texts, but URLs are easier).
@capbros What sources argue that Google Play and Steam enforce DRM? I believe the information for enabling DRM for Google Play is at https://developer.android.com/google/play/licensing/index.html . This does not seem to be the kind of thing that one could enable without realising. For Steam, I note there are plenty of articles listing DRM-free games on Steam.
"You must include cc-by/sa assets in a common file format that end user could easily use to open/modify the work themselves if they wanted. I mention this because it is not wholly uncommon for games to re-package assets into their own file format schemes. As an example, for textures, it's not uncommon to have some kind of build step that compresses them into some kind of a raw gl/direct format in order to speed load times. I've also seen plenty of devs that like to bundle all the files for their game into a single file with some kind of zip or otherwise compressed format. Pretty sure distributing cc-by/sa works like this would be violation of the license."
I can't see where in the licences it says this?
There is no requirement AFAIK that the recipient must be able to reconstruct or directly access the original work, otherwise that would be problematic for derivative works (e.g., distributing a rendered image that uses CC BY models or textures doesn't require inclusion of those models or textures in a common format). As you note, repackaging or converting to more suitable formats is common practice for games, so would be problematic.
I can see that argument applying to the GPL, if such things were deemed to be the "source", but CC licences having nothing like that. (Even for the GPL, there's no requirement to bundle all of the source formats with your binary distribution, instead you just have to offer it as a separate download.)
Bundling the files into a single compressed file is certainly allowed. If it wasn't, an awful lot of pages on OGA where files are bundled into a zip would be violating this.
Note, the bit about technical restrictions is specifically defined as "A technological measure is considered an ETM if circumventing it carries penalties under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, or similar international agreements." ( https://creativecommons.org/faq/ ). It's intended to address the problem that even if I'm able to get round DRM, in many countries I'd be breaking the law to do so. But I'm not breaking the law to unzip an zip file - nor does putting it in a zip stop me from redistributing. It's about preserving people's right to allow redistribution, but if the work has been transformed, the originals don't have to be supplied.
The FAQ says "Note that merely converting material into a different format that is difficult to access ... does not violate the restriction".
Unfortuately the question of whether the licence applies to the entire game is unclear for both CC BY SA and the GPL. In practice most people seem to assume that it doesn't (and it would be a right pain, especially for CC BY SA, if this was the case). I don't think it's been tested in court one way or the other.
Distribution on Google Play is fine, Google offer DRM but it is not required. (And DRM certainly isn't an issue for distrbuting Android applications elsewhere.) As far as I know, DRM is optional for Steam too.
"For example, on PC, if you distribute the works along side the executable for your game, they should be stored in a well named file and folder structure and in their native file formats (jpg, png, mp3, etc)."
This can be nice to do, but note there is no legal requirement to structure it in this way. Indeed, converting to alternative formats as required is certainl allowed under all free licence on OGA.
Pages