Actually that first part isn't clear. Cc by sa does not require you to release game code - it says nothing about code in the licence.
The question as to whether you'd have to release the whole game as cc by sa is one of the debated aspects that no one really knows, and is a problem with it imo (as cc by sa isn't rally suitable for software).
OTOH, the second part is clear, any use of the work means you have to abide by the licence. It doesn't matter if you modify it or not.
I don't think we can complain about the name, when it's being used in the generic sense to refer to open game art. I mean, it might be one thing if they'd called their site "OpenGameArt" (though even then, it would probably be coincidence due to the genericness of the term, rather than intentional), but this is just used to describe an open game art bundle - what else do they call it? Can no one else really use the words "open game art"?
"I hope people understand that OpenGameArt.org isn't directly involved. (Also, if I ever want to host a bundle campaign here, what do I call it?)"
I don't think that's a problem - I don't think people are going to assume they must be done by the same people. But this does demonstrate the problem - if they shouldn't be using the term "open game art", should OGA not ever be able to use the word "bundle", because they used it?
If one wants names to be unique, I think that requires starting with less generic terms. The reason the names are the same is because they're describing the same thing - it's like saying that two different fruit and vegetable stores are both fruit and vegetable stores.
I think OpenGameArt.org Bundle would be fine, as that clearly refers to the website.
"but I assume it means that any derivatives I make from the art there has to be released under that license and must credit the original author, right? I'm perfectly fine with that."
This is correct.
"But what about making a game that uses such an asset? Does that mean that the source code has to be released under that license, too?"
Certainly not, because even if you had to release the game as CC BY-SA, that licence doesn't say anything about source code.
What is unclear though is whether CC BY-SA does apply to the entire game - if it did, then it would mean people would be free to distribute your game under that licence.
Is this a commercial project, or just for free/fun? If the former, these are questions to ask a lawyer. If the latter, why not release the source anyway?
Or if you mean you're happy to release the source, but are asking whether it has to be released under CC BY-SA. In practice, plenty of people release source under licences like GPL or BSD, even if they use CC BY-SA art. It is an unfortunate problem with CC BY-SA that if it really applied to the entire game, it would mean the source would have to be CC BY-SA too.
If you're going to be drawing on top of it, it's still going to be a derivative work, so not okay.
At first I thought they were actually using the LPC sprites ( http://lpc.opengameart.org/static/lpc-style-guide/assets.html ), though it does seem slightly different (e.g., different height proportions). But then having said that, if you just want a base template, how about using the LPC ones instead?
Recent versions have added a 3rd quest, and a new gameplay mode with a random dungeon, among various other improvements.
I've tested it on my Samsung Galaxy Nexus and the Android emulator, so please let me know if anyone experiences problems. It requires Android 2.3.3 or better, and a resolution of 800x480 or higher. This also requires installing the app Ministro, which you should be prompted to do when you first run Erebus (if it's not already installed). Ministro manages the required Qt libraries on Android. The libraries can take up to around 25MB, so it may be best to download over a Wifi connection.
I'd say that the problem of "Light objects neutrally" is why providing "different rotations of the same image" is a useful thing - because once you have lighting/shadows, creating the different orientations isn't as simple as just doing a rotation. (This doesn't apply to the spaceship example, which does seem to be a simple rotation, but I think it's a point worth mentioning in general.)
It's true that one can simplify things if objects are lit from above, but I think isometric games do look better with a shadow cast to the side.
If I was writing an Asteroids game, I would rotate at run-time as "orient in any direction" is a key part of a game - but for cases where the directions are more limited (e.g., 4 or 8), providing multiple images can give better quality.
On APIs, in an ideal world APIs like SDL would all be GPU optimised, but they're not, and rightly or wrongly, there are people with games and engines built on SDL (perhaps because it's the APIs they know and it works, or there's a big codebase that would need porting).
Plus I don't see why this is a problem for you anyway - if you only need one image because you can rotate at runtime, then simply take one image. At worst, the artist wasted his time, I don't see how it slows you down :)
I prefer to use an alpha channel rather than colour keys these days, and it's easier to work with (e.g., one can scale the image with anti-aliasing - if you do that to an image with a colour key, you'll get a "fringe" effect where the colour key is blended with adjacent pixels, and is no longer invisible as it's a slightly different colour). But again, I don't see it as a problem, it's easy enough to convert (e.g., the Grim Color Reaper plugin for Paint.NET). If you think it's easy to switch to a new API, then it should be easy for you to convert the image.
If we want to consider modern techniques, why bother with 2D images at all? Just render the 3D object directly, then you can decide on things like the lighting yourself. What are the advantages of using the 2D images?
In paper RPGs, races like goblins/orcs have often been inherently evil - and in that sense, killing them is no more unethical than killing demons.
Another way of looking at it I think is that the races are essentially at war - or alternatively, it is a matter of survival.
I thought it interesting how in Morrowind (and presumably the other Elder Scrolls games), creatures like Orcs were friendly, and the enemies you encountered were either other humans or undead/demonic/magical. Though I don't think it avoids the issue of killing (indeed, in that game, you are killing other humans), just the races behave differently.
In theory, I like the idea of an RPG that has a focus on things other than killing, and isn't simply about killing room after room full of monsters. However I think writing such a thing is far from easy - you need a far larger amount of ideas, just for a small amount of gametime. Plus it doesn't change that killing enemies is still a core part of most RPGs - it's like saying it should be possible to complete a shoot 'em up without killing things :)
One advantage of having XP awarded on smaller things like killing creatures, and having them respawn, is it makes it easier to balance the gameplay - if it's too hard for a player, they can always get stronger by killing a few more creatures.
With paper RPGs where you have a human GM, it's easier to deal out the XP at the end of a quest (or major part), because a human can better use their judgement to decide how much a person deserves or needs to balance the game.
I don't know how similar to Fallout that is, though I note what you've described sounds like most of the RPG systems out there... I don't know if there's ever been a court case covering RPG rule systems(?) The cases I know apply to complete remakes, which includes issues such as trademarks and copyrighted art (e.g., I think there was a case involving the Talisman game, but can't find a link atm).
As for patents - as I say, remember that could apply to every aspect of a game, as well as every algorithm you write. Sadly the only 100% way to be sure is to get a lawyer, but we have to be pragmatic, in practice most individuals, hobbyists and Open Source programmers aren't going to be able to do this, and it seems to be a better tactic simply to steer clear of known patents. I don't think there's anything special about "RPG rules".
And yes I hope we haven't scared off RainHippie! Really my point is that one shouldn't worry too much about things like patents when you're learning to program.
True, I'd agree that if you're going to copy something 100%, it's perhaps better to use one that's properly released under a licence that lets you do what you want to do with it. I don't think I'd worry about the words if they're perfectly good words to describe something (e.g., "Fighting Prowess"). More specific made-up words may be best to avoid, and this also crosses over into Trademarks (e.g., everyone avoids using the word "Hobbit" because it's trademarked, even though loads of people and companies have happily ripped off large chunks of Tolkien's world, including "halflings").
Rules could be patented in some countries. There is indeed the problem that one can't know if something is patentable without doing an extensive patent search - unfortunately this applies to everything in software development, from any kind of game mechanics, to algorithms. And it applies whether you copy one thing entirely, draw inspiration from various games, or even independently recreate it yourself. In practice, I think that means that one either (a) never releases code at all, (b) hires a lawyer to do patent searches, or (c) not care so much, and avoid things which are known to be patented (e.g., Carmack's Reverse shadowing algorithm, or mp3 playback) (or (d), live in a country where pure software patents aren't enforcable).
"It seems pretty clear to me that implementing a ruleset in source code is a derivative work and therefore would trigger the "share alike" provisions of a copyleft license. I don't see how one can argue that it's not a derivative work."
In which case, I feel it would be inconvenient in many cases - as I say, many of the licences for documents/rules/art aren't suitable for software (so CC BY-SA would mean the game source/binary has to be CC BY-SA). But still, I don't think that matters, as the issue is the expression of the rules, not implementing the rules themselves in source.
"Non-commercial licenses are only incompatible with copyleft licenses. You can release something derived from a permissively licensed work as full-blown closed source if you wanted. If you mean that you're game would not be truly open source if you had non-commercial provisions in the license, I agree."
Yes I agree - it's possible to mix Free software with non-Free art/rules. But it's worth considering the consequences of non-commercial restrictions (e.g., http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC ), just as with non-commercially licensed art. Thanks for the links anyway btw - I just wanted to point out for people to beware that not all of the categories are Free licences.
Actually that first part isn't clear. Cc by sa does not require you to release game code - it says nothing about code in the licence.
The question as to whether you'd have to release the whole game as cc by sa is one of the debated aspects that no one really knows, and is a problem with it imo (as cc by sa isn't rally suitable for software).
OTOH, the second part is clear, any use of the work means you have to abide by the licence. It doesn't matter if you modify it or not.
I don't think we can complain about the name, when it's being used in the generic sense to refer to open game art. I mean, it might be one thing if they'd called their site "OpenGameArt" (though even then, it would probably be coincidence due to the genericness of the term, rather than intentional), but this is just used to describe an open game art bundle - what else do they call it? Can no one else really use the words "open game art"?
"I hope people understand that OpenGameArt.org isn't directly involved. (Also, if I ever want to host a bundle campaign here, what do I call it?)"
I don't think that's a problem - I don't think people are going to assume they must be done by the same people. But this does demonstrate the problem - if they shouldn't be using the term "open game art", should OGA not ever be able to use the word "bundle", because they used it?
If one wants names to be unique, I think that requires starting with less generic terms. The reason the names are the same is because they're describing the same thing - it's like saying that two different fruit and vegetable stores are both fruit and vegetable stores.
I think OpenGameArt.org Bundle would be fine, as that clearly refers to the website.
What's the problem with it? Even if it's too high polygon, renders can still be made for 2D images.
"but I assume it means that any derivatives I make from the art there has to be released under that license and must credit the original author, right? I'm perfectly fine with that."
This is correct.
"But what about making a game that uses such an asset? Does that mean that the source code has to be released under that license, too?"
Certainly not, because even if you had to release the game as CC BY-SA, that licence doesn't say anything about source code.
What is unclear though is whether CC BY-SA does apply to the entire game - if it did, then it would mean people would be free to distribute your game under that licence.
Is this a commercial project, or just for free/fun? If the former, these are questions to ask a lawyer. If the latter, why not release the source anyway?
Or if you mean you're happy to release the source, but are asking whether it has to be released under CC BY-SA. In practice, plenty of people release source under licences like GPL or BSD, even if they use CC BY-SA art. It is an unfortunate problem with CC BY-SA that if it really applied to the entire game, it would mean the source would have to be CC BY-SA too.
If you're going to be drawing on top of it, it's still going to be a derivative work, so not okay.
At first I thought they were actually using the LPC sprites ( http://lpc.opengameart.org/static/lpc-style-guide/assets.html ), though it does seem slightly different (e.g., different height proportions). But then having said that, if you just want a base template, how about using the LPC ones instead?
Erebus is now available for Android phones/tablets on Google Play! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.sourceforge.erebusrpg
Recent versions have added a 3rd quest, and a new gameplay mode with a random dungeon, among various other improvements.
I've tested it on my Samsung Galaxy Nexus and the Android emulator, so please let me know if anyone experiences problems. It requires Android 2.3.3 or better, and a resolution of 800x480 or higher. This also requires installing the app Ministro, which you should be prompted to do when you first run Erebus (if it's not already installed). Ministro manages the required Qt libraries on Android. The libraries can take up to around 25MB, so it may be best to download over a Wifi connection.
I'd say that the problem of "Light objects neutrally" is why providing "different rotations of the same image" is a useful thing - because once you have lighting/shadows, creating the different orientations isn't as simple as just doing a rotation. (This doesn't apply to the spaceship example, which does seem to be a simple rotation, but I think it's a point worth mentioning in general.)
It's true that one can simplify things if objects are lit from above, but I think isometric games do look better with a shadow cast to the side.
If I was writing an Asteroids game, I would rotate at run-time as "orient in any direction" is a key part of a game - but for cases where the directions are more limited (e.g., 4 or 8), providing multiple images can give better quality.
On APIs, in an ideal world APIs like SDL would all be GPU optimised, but they're not, and rightly or wrongly, there are people with games and engines built on SDL (perhaps because it's the APIs they know and it works, or there's a big codebase that would need porting).
Plus I don't see why this is a problem for you anyway - if you only need one image because you can rotate at runtime, then simply take one image. At worst, the artist wasted his time, I don't see how it slows you down :)
I prefer to use an alpha channel rather than colour keys these days, and it's easier to work with (e.g., one can scale the image with anti-aliasing - if you do that to an image with a colour key, you'll get a "fringe" effect where the colour key is blended with adjacent pixels, and is no longer invisible as it's a slightly different colour). But again, I don't see it as a problem, it's easy enough to convert (e.g., the Grim Color Reaper plugin for Paint.NET). If you think it's easy to switch to a new API, then it should be easy for you to convert the image.
If we want to consider modern techniques, why bother with 2D images at all? Just render the 3D object directly, then you can decide on things like the lighting yourself. What are the advantages of using the 2D images?
In paper RPGs, races like goblins/orcs have often been inherently evil - and in that sense, killing them is no more unethical than killing demons.
Another way of looking at it I think is that the races are essentially at war - or alternatively, it is a matter of survival.
I thought it interesting how in Morrowind (and presumably the other Elder Scrolls games), creatures like Orcs were friendly, and the enemies you encountered were either other humans or undead/demonic/magical. Though I don't think it avoids the issue of killing (indeed, in that game, you are killing other humans), just the races behave differently.
In theory, I like the idea of an RPG that has a focus on things other than killing, and isn't simply about killing room after room full of monsters. However I think writing such a thing is far from easy - you need a far larger amount of ideas, just for a small amount of gametime. Plus it doesn't change that killing enemies is still a core part of most RPGs - it's like saying it should be possible to complete a shoot 'em up without killing things :)
One advantage of having XP awarded on smaller things like killing creatures, and having them respawn, is it makes it easier to balance the gameplay - if it's too hard for a player, they can always get stronger by killing a few more creatures.
With paper RPGs where you have a human GM, it's easier to deal out the XP at the end of a quest (or major part), because a human can better use their judgement to decide how much a person deserves or needs to balance the game.
I don't know how similar to Fallout that is, though I note what you've described sounds like most of the RPG systems out there... I don't know if there's ever been a court case covering RPG rule systems(?) The cases I know apply to complete remakes, which includes issues such as trademarks and copyrighted art (e.g., I think there was a case involving the Talisman game, but can't find a link atm).
As for patents - as I say, remember that could apply to every aspect of a game, as well as every algorithm you write. Sadly the only 100% way to be sure is to get a lawyer, but we have to be pragmatic, in practice most individuals, hobbyists and Open Source programmers aren't going to be able to do this, and it seems to be a better tactic simply to steer clear of known patents. I don't think there's anything special about "RPG rules".
And yes I hope we haven't scared off RainHippie! Really my point is that one shouldn't worry too much about things like patents when you're learning to program.
True, I'd agree that if you're going to copy something 100%, it's perhaps better to use one that's properly released under a licence that lets you do what you want to do with it. I don't think I'd worry about the words if they're perfectly good words to describe something (e.g., "Fighting Prowess"). More specific made-up words may be best to avoid, and this also crosses over into Trademarks (e.g., everyone avoids using the word "Hobbit" because it's trademarked, even though loads of people and companies have happily ripped off large chunks of Tolkien's world, including "halflings").
Rules could be patented in some countries. There is indeed the problem that one can't know if something is patentable without doing an extensive patent search - unfortunately this applies to everything in software development, from any kind of game mechanics, to algorithms. And it applies whether you copy one thing entirely, draw inspiration from various games, or even independently recreate it yourself. In practice, I think that means that one either (a) never releases code at all, (b) hires a lawyer to do patent searches, or (c) not care so much, and avoid things which are known to be patented (e.g., Carmack's Reverse shadowing algorithm, or mp3 playback) (or (d), live in a country where pure software patents aren't enforcable).
"It seems pretty clear to me that implementing a ruleset in source code is a derivative work and therefore would trigger the "share alike" provisions of a copyleft license. I don't see how one can argue that it's not a derivative work."
In which case, I feel it would be inconvenient in many cases - as I say, many of the licences for documents/rules/art aren't suitable for software (so CC BY-SA would mean the game source/binary has to be CC BY-SA). But still, I don't think that matters, as the issue is the expression of the rules, not implementing the rules themselves in source.
"Non-commercial licenses are only incompatible with copyleft licenses. You can release something derived from a permissively licensed work as full-blown closed source if you wanted. If you mean that you're game would not be truly open source if you had non-commercial provisions in the license, I agree."
Yes I agree - it's possible to mix Free software with non-Free art/rules. But it's worth considering the consequences of non-commercial restrictions (e.g., http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC ), just as with non-commercially licensed art. Thanks for the links anyway btw - I just wanted to point out for people to beware that not all of the categories are Free licences.
Pages