"Also note that I'm quite familiar with both radical feminism and mens' rights advocacy. There are of course moderate and radical MRAs, although while I've met plenty of feminists who categorically decry the views of the radical wing of feminism, I have yet to see a moderate MRA publicly criticize radical MRAs. Perhaps you can point me to an instance of this happening."
Is there such a sub-category as "Radical MRA"? Maybe there is, in which case fair enough (a quick google didn't reveal anything).
I mean, Radical Feminism isn't simply "radical" in the dictionary sense (e.g., "a radical opinion" as you say later), that is "feminists who are more radical", but an established sub-category with distinctive views. The name also presumably comes from wanting a fundamental change in society, rather than simply being extremists. There are also people who identify as radical feminists. So this means we will see other feminists refer to radical feminisms and radical feminists.
Not on either "side" here, just noting that even if there will be people within MRA with more extreme views, that isn't comparable to Radical Feminism within feminism, so we wouldn't necessarily see criticism of them in the same way. Plus a lot of the reason why we see feminists decrying the views of radical feminsts isn't simply because they are more extreme, but because of fundamentally opposed views on issues - e.g., porn, transsexualism. (Although EternalArchon's response suggests there's plenty of MRA in-fighting anyway - I guess as it's not as large or as well known a group, there's less publicity about it. I guess Judean People's Front applies everywhere:))
If we're talking about a single shadow colour (not even using the palette), then that does seem uncopyrightable in my opinion - otherwise I could just release a colour map that copyrights every colour in a 24-bit palette :)
For an artist who makes use of a palette, there's perhaps some argument it's a derivative work. Though they'd have to admit it, or show some evidence of this - again, I can't just put up a colour palette and claim ownership of those colours, if people use them independently.
Brand identity would be to do with trademark law. I think colours could be trademarked, though this is more to do with commercial use (And who knows - it wouldn't surprise me if in the US you could get a design patent for something like a colour...) But I don't see how doing any of this would be anything in the interest of being Free or Open Source.
A name like "Dungeon Tactics" could well be made up independently (and I agree with gnudist it wouldn't and shouldn't be a copyright issue anyway). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41rtLDVxEsQ suggests the game has existed since at least 21 July 2012 - was that before or after the release of your game?
Either way, for a name made up by two existing words, coincidence is far more likely than malice in my opinion (whenever I've thought up names for games, searching for names often finds more than one existing game with the same name).
Attribution for the LPC art should be given however. Note that the game has been submitted to various sites for online games, and the contact http:// www. gamesgood. com/contactus/ seems to be for the site - so that's fine to ask them to take it down, but the other sites would have to be done separately. Although they might be able to say how to get hold of the author, perhaps.
http:// izismile. com/2012/07/27/dungeon_tactics.html has an online comments form, not sure if the author would be paying attention.
I agree with bart that friendly pokes are better than torches and pitchforks.
I noticed a similar oddity when I uploaded http://opengameart.org/content/freeciv-terrain - see water.png at 1217, much higher than the rest. But I recall that even when I first uploaded this, the file started off at around 900...
"As a rule of thumb, I expect colour ramps (as found somewhere in the LPC base assets) to be copyrightable, simply because it is difficult for me as a non-artists to create good ones."
My understanding is that being difficult to create is not sufficient to be copyrightable, but there must be a creative element. I guess one could argue there can be a creative element to a colour palette, though it's not really clear to me...
On anonymity - on the one hand, I agree there is the point that it allows people to be more vicious without having to worry. But I think anonymity is a good thing too, and this episode shows that aspect also: I don't want any risk of my employer being associated with any comments I make, or to be fired because people find out where I work. (I'm guessing this firing happened in states with at-will employment, something I disagree with...)
I think it's a good thing to have some rules about sexual talk in that kind of conference. Perhaps there should be some rules about taking photos of people without their consent...
I guess one catch is that the likes of Disney have no issues with raiding the public domain for content that they then use in derivative works which are locked up for 95 years or more. So a system where some people voluntarily release their content isn't the same as one where it's shorter copyright terms for everyone, and I can see the standard copyleft argument - making something under a GPL-style licence expire after a shorter term just makes it easier for someone else to build a derivative work that's then copyrighted for 95 years, or perhaps indefinitely.
Though I can see it being a good thing in terms of raising awareness, making the point that there are people who believe in shorter terms. Often the debate is polarised as if the only two options are "the current system" and "no copyright everything must be free".
It would also be useful for people releasing content where they don't want to use Free/Open licences (either people doing things commercially - or perhaps people who don't want their work used commercially in the short term).
And it's perhaps a compromise between the two opposed views of GPL vs BSD style licences: I can see that I might say "I'd rather choose GPL, but in 20 years I don't really care what someone does with it, so the copyright might as well expire by then".
It's not true that CC BY-SA requires source to be released (see below). However, it is the case that the CC BY-SA art itself must be relicensed under the same terms, so the issue of "All apple games on the app store must be released under the Apple liscense" may still be true.
I agree with C.Nilsson's reply. Yes, licence incompatibility can be a shame, but I'd argue that things like the locking down of computing devices is certainly in the spirit of what Free copyleft licences were intended to deter (or at least, not support). Still, you are of course free to ask the copyright holders what they think, they may be okay with more liberal licences.
@Gaurav: "The (relatively) easy solution is to release your game both under the GPL (perhaps the source on github) and the Apple license (on the iOS store). So long as the game is also available as GPL, no one can complain."
It may be true that no one complains, but I'm not sure that fixes the issue. The problem isn't availability of source code, it's relicensing under a different term, which would apply even if the files are available elsewhere. (I mean, I can't relicense CC BY-SA art under a proprietary licence - I don't think it's allowed just because I could say "But you can still download the files from Open Game Art"?)
@cjc83486: "This license requires you to release the source your entire project under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL. If you're trying to sell a game, this is probably something you want to avoid, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well."
This FAQ is incorrect imo. There is nothing in the CC BY-SA licence text ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ) that says "or similar" includes the GPL. In fact, the text refers to "Creative Commons Compatible License", defined at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses , which currently says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"!
I think it is a problem of CC BY-SA that the human-readable summary refers to "similar" licences (and indeed, share "alike" is part of the name), yet in fact, there are no similar licences, you can only relicence under CC BY-SA itself.
Also I think the OGA FAQ needs to be updated, unless a reliable reference can be found supporting it?
"Since this is the sites policy I must assume it was also the artist's intent."
Though if someone releases something under a licence, the terms of that licence applies - if the author thought it meant something else, it's their own fault.
If you have something that said "Licenced under the CC BY-SA. Games using it must be released under the GPL", one could argue it was some kind of adapation of the licence - but this isn't the case here. I don't think one could argue that files released under CC BY-SA on this site, are bound by the definition in the FAQ just because it's on the same site. (Indeed, that would be a whole can of worms in itself, as anyone uploading someone else's CC BY-SA work to OGA would be in violation for relicensing...)
Though as I say, the issue of relicensing CC BY-SA not being allowed on Apple's application site may still apply.
"if a game used all CC-by-SA art, is it really a seperate thing or isn't it an adaptation of the work?"
But if this the case, then it wouldn't be sufficient to release the game binary/code as GPL (since that isn't a "similar" licence), you'd have to release the game as CC BY-SA. Which is why I hope that interpretation isn't true, as it basically makes CC BY-SA useless for game art (well, I suppose one could get round it by dual-licensing the game binary as CC BY-SA).
As for the debate about which licence to use, I think this comes back to the classic GPL vs BSD debate: whether to preserve freedom for users, or whether to maximise freedom for developers. The paradox is you can't do both, which is why we end up with these two philosophies to Free software/content.
@C.Nilsson: "I don't see CC-BY-SA as a mess for game development if the game is open source. If it's not, then I don't want my by-sa art in it"
Unfortunately, the CC BY-SA licence doesn't say that. It's unclear there is a licence that says that - possibly the GPL, but using the GPL for art is a bit vague as to how it applies, again.
ETA: I also like the tactic taken by the FSF (re: the linked news item) - that they didn't ask them to take it down, they asked for the terms to be changed. Of course Apple were unlikely to change just from one request, but it means FSF can't be made to look the bad guys :)
I don't see how this is "evil" though? I mean, the user still gets a pop up asking if they want to download, and they'd be asked again before opening/running it, with the usual warnings that Windows gives. As said above, auto-downloads can be done with a webpage, so most users should be used to the idea (albeit it's a bit unconventional with an svg file).
I don't think clicking on the svg alone could the exe to run?
Yes, it's true that one can circumvent the restriction on uploading exe files, but then one could do that by uploading a zip too, and I guess one has to be pragmatic - there's little point allowing exes on a site for art, but you can't stop people distributing one in another form, without restricting useful types like zip and svg.
Interesting point about svgs - I knew you could embed raster images (rather than the vector style they usually are for), I didn't know about embedding any file though.
Is there the source for this? Remember that the source should be made available for this build (for the GPL, but I also imagine it's of more use for the developers, and also would allow testing on other platforms...)
"Also note that I'm quite familiar with both radical feminism and mens' rights advocacy. There are of course moderate and radical MRAs, although while I've met plenty of feminists who categorically decry the views of the radical wing of feminism, I have yet to see a moderate MRA publicly criticize radical MRAs. Perhaps you can point me to an instance of this happening."
Is there such a sub-category as "Radical MRA"? Maybe there is, in which case fair enough (a quick google didn't reveal anything).
I mean, Radical Feminism isn't simply "radical" in the dictionary sense (e.g., "a radical opinion" as you say later), that is "feminists who are more radical", but an established sub-category with distinctive views. The name also presumably comes from wanting a fundamental change in society, rather than simply being extremists. There are also people who identify as radical feminists. So this means we will see other feminists refer to radical feminisms and radical feminists.
Not on either "side" here, just noting that even if there will be people within MRA with more extreme views, that isn't comparable to Radical Feminism within feminism, so we wouldn't necessarily see criticism of them in the same way. Plus a lot of the reason why we see feminists decrying the views of radical feminsts isn't simply because they are more extreme, but because of fundamentally opposed views on issues - e.g., porn, transsexualism. (Although EternalArchon's response suggests there's plenty of MRA in-fighting anyway - I guess as it's not as large or as well known a group, there's less publicity about it. I guess Judean People's Front applies everywhere:))
If we're talking about a single shadow colour (not even using the palette), then that does seem uncopyrightable in my opinion - otherwise I could just release a colour map that copyrights every colour in a 24-bit palette :)
For an artist who makes use of a palette, there's perhaps some argument it's a derivative work. Though they'd have to admit it, or show some evidence of this - again, I can't just put up a colour palette and claim ownership of those colours, if people use them independently.
Brand identity would be to do with trademark law. I think colours could be trademarked, though this is more to do with commercial use (And who knows - it wouldn't surprise me if in the US you could get a design patent for something like a colour...) But I don't see how doing any of this would be anything in the interest of being Free or Open Source.
A name like "Dungeon Tactics" could well be made up independently (and I agree with gnudist it wouldn't and shouldn't be a copyright issue anyway). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41rtLDVxEsQ suggests the game has existed since at least 21 July 2012 - was that before or after the release of your game?
Either way, for a name made up by two existing words, coincidence is far more likely than malice in my opinion (whenever I've thought up names for games, searching for names often finds more than one existing game with the same name).
Attribution for the LPC art should be given however. Note that the game has been submitted to various sites for online games, and the contact http:// www. gamesgood. com/contactus/ seems to be for the site - so that's fine to ask them to take it down, but the other sites would have to be done separately. Although they might be able to say how to get hold of the author, perhaps.
http:// izismile. com/2012/07/27/dungeon_tactics.html has an online comments form, not sure if the author would be paying attention.
I agree with bart that friendly pokes are better than torches and pitchforks.
I noticed a similar oddity when I uploaded http://opengameart.org/content/freeciv-terrain - see water.png at 1217, much higher than the rest. But I recall that even when I first uploaded this, the file started off at around 900...
"As a rule of thumb, I expect colour ramps (as found somewhere in the LPC base assets) to be copyrightable, simply because it is difficult for me as a non-artists to create good ones."
My understanding is that being difficult to create is not sufficient to be copyrightable, but there must be a creative element. I guess one could argue there can be a creative element to a colour palette, though it's not really clear to me...
I agree.
On anonymity - on the one hand, I agree there is the point that it allows people to be more vicious without having to worry. But I think anonymity is a good thing too, and this episode shows that aspect also: I don't want any risk of my employer being associated with any comments I make, or to be fired because people find out where I work. (I'm guessing this firing happened in states with at-will employment, something I disagree with...)
I think it's a good thing to have some rules about sexual talk in that kind of conference. Perhaps there should be some rules about taking photos of people without their consent...
It sounds a good idea.
I guess one catch is that the likes of Disney have no issues with raiding the public domain for content that they then use in derivative works which are locked up for 95 years or more. So a system where some people voluntarily release their content isn't the same as one where it's shorter copyright terms for everyone, and I can see the standard copyleft argument - making something under a GPL-style licence expire after a shorter term just makes it easier for someone else to build a derivative work that's then copyrighted for 95 years, or perhaps indefinitely.
Though I can see it being a good thing in terms of raising awareness, making the point that there are people who believe in shorter terms. Often the debate is polarised as if the only two options are "the current system" and "no copyright everything must be free".
It would also be useful for people releasing content where they don't want to use Free/Open licences (either people doing things commercially - or perhaps people who don't want their work used commercially in the short term).
And it's perhaps a compromise between the two opposed views of GPL vs BSD style licences: I can see that I might say "I'd rather choose GPL, but in 20 years I don't really care what someone does with it, so the copyright might as well expire by then".
It's not true that CC BY-SA requires source to be released (see below). However, it is the case that the CC BY-SA art itself must be relicensed under the same terms, so the issue of "All apple games on the app store must be released under the Apple liscense" may still be true.
Also see some discussion at https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/9846/iosmac-app-store-and-cc-by... .
I agree with C.Nilsson's reply. Yes, licence incompatibility can be a shame, but I'd argue that things like the locking down of computing devices is certainly in the spirit of what Free copyleft licences were intended to deter (or at least, not support). Still, you are of course free to ask the copyright holders what they think, they may be okay with more liberal licences.
@Gaurav: "The (relatively) easy solution is to release your game both under the GPL (perhaps the source on github) and the Apple license (on the iOS store). So long as the game is also available as GPL, no one can complain."
It may be true that no one complains, but I'm not sure that fixes the issue. The problem isn't availability of source code, it's relicensing under a different term, which would apply even if the files are available elsewhere. (I mean, I can't relicense CC BY-SA art under a proprietary licence - I don't think it's allowed just because I could say "But you can still download the files from Open Game Art"?)
@cjc83486: "This license requires you to release the source your entire project under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL. If you're trying to sell a game, this is probably something you want to avoid, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well."
This FAQ is incorrect imo. There is nothing in the CC BY-SA licence text ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ) that says "or similar" includes the GPL. In fact, the text refers to "Creative Commons Compatible License", defined at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses , which currently says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"!
I think it is a problem of CC BY-SA that the human-readable summary refers to "similar" licences (and indeed, share "alike" is part of the name), yet in fact, there are no similar licences, you can only relicence under CC BY-SA itself.
Also I think the OGA FAQ needs to be updated, unless a reliable reference can be found supporting it?
"Since this is the sites policy I must assume it was also the artist's intent."
Though if someone releases something under a licence, the terms of that licence applies - if the author thought it meant something else, it's their own fault.
If you have something that said "Licenced under the CC BY-SA. Games using it must be released under the GPL", one could argue it was some kind of adapation of the licence - but this isn't the case here. I don't think one could argue that files released under CC BY-SA on this site, are bound by the definition in the FAQ just because it's on the same site. (Indeed, that would be a whole can of worms in itself, as anyone uploading someone else's CC BY-SA work to OGA would be in violation for relicensing...)
Though as I say, the issue of relicensing CC BY-SA not being allowed on Apple's application site may still apply.
"if a game used all CC-by-SA art, is it really a seperate thing or isn't it an adaptation of the work?"
But if this the case, then it wouldn't be sufficient to release the game binary/code as GPL (since that isn't a "similar" licence), you'd have to release the game as CC BY-SA. Which is why I hope that interpretation isn't true, as it basically makes CC BY-SA useless for game art (well, I suppose one could get round it by dual-licensing the game binary as CC BY-SA).
As for the debate about which licence to use, I think this comes back to the classic GPL vs BSD debate: whether to preserve freedom for users, or whether to maximise freedom for developers. The paradox is you can't do both, which is why we end up with these two philosophies to Free software/content.
@C.Nilsson: "I don't see CC-BY-SA as a mess for game development if the game is open source. If it's not, then I don't want my by-sa art in it"
Unfortunately, the CC BY-SA licence doesn't say that. It's unclear there is a licence that says that - possibly the GPL, but using the GPL for art is a bit vague as to how it applies, again.
ETA: I also like the tactic taken by the FSF (re: the linked news item) - that they didn't ask them to take it down, they asked for the terms to be changed. Of course Apple were unlikely to change just from one request, but it means FSF can't be made to look the bad guys :)
I don't see how this is "evil" though? I mean, the user still gets a pop up asking if they want to download, and they'd be asked again before opening/running it, with the usual warnings that Windows gives. As said above, auto-downloads can be done with a webpage, so most users should be used to the idea (albeit it's a bit unconventional with an svg file).
I don't think clicking on the svg alone could the exe to run?
Yes, it's true that one can circumvent the restriction on uploading exe files, but then one could do that by uploading a zip too, and I guess one has to be pragmatic - there's little point allowing exes on a site for art, but you can't stop people distributing one in another form, without restricting useful types like zip and svg.
Interesting point about svgs - I knew you could embed raster images (rather than the vector style they usually are for), I didn't know about embedding any file though.
Is there the source for this? Remember that the source should be made available for this build (for the GPL, but I also imagine it's of more use for the developers, and also would allow testing on other platforms...)
Pages