I tested Tiled out on my Asus Transformer Book - for touchscreen, the GUI buttons could be larger, and the menu may need some thought especially on Android. Using something like a spinner would be better for things like entering tile/map sizes. But it all seems feasible.
For editing, a touchscreen works really well to quickly paint maps. If I plug in my keyboard dock, I have something that works well with both the UI and to use the touchscreen for painting. It would be good to have some way of scrolling using my touchscreen without using the scrollbars - maybe a two-finger pan gesture? Multitouch zoom would be nice too (especially since it's already supported on a touchpad).
Tiled uses Qt which now supports Android, so porting the code shouldn't be a huge problem. Support for multitouch for dragging and zooming should be easy with Qt too, and would be a useful thing to add for the existing platforms also.
I think the way you've done it is fine. If there's only a user name, put that, but sometimes people will say what name should be used as the credit.
"You don't need to link to the licencing rules"
Not sure if I misunderstand this, but note that the URL of the licence must be included (or else the full text of the licence itself) for CC BY 3.0 (although yes, it doesn't have to be implemented as a link).
Just to say that I love the work you've been uploading, and I have been collecting some of it for my own game, Erebus ( http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ ) (I don't think there's any in the current version, but the next release will have several items you've released on OGA, so many thanks for those). My game also uses a lot of the graphics from FLARE, so having graphics that are compatible in terms of lighting and angle is good for me too, and I imagine any other developers wanting to make isometric games - more compatible assets is a good thing.
Personally I don't have any requirements for FPS, as this can be defined per-graphic (I don't know about FLARE, but it could well be the same - I see that the animation config files each have a "duration" attribute).
I've attached a spritesheet of these in PNG format (I haven't added transparency, just left as the original images). Easy to do on my Asus Transformer Book tablet :)
@William.Thompsonj: I'm not taking sides as such on whether GPL can apply to art, but I'm not convinced by those examples. For examples 1-3, and 5-6, couldn't you have the same examples for code? E.g., a browser that downloads a GPL plugin to display the content, or if I view a generic program thatt reads and inspects a GPL program (e.g., debugging tools).
The fact that a GPL item A can be read by program B doesn't force B to become GPLed - and that is what is intended, whether A is a program or art. This isn't a problem, because the GPL was never meant to cover those examples. The issue is when B is distributed with A (a "covered work").
As you note, the examples apply to CC BY-SA. I don't think people saying the GPL applies to art want it to apply in these examples - they're talking about when an art is redistributed with a game.
For example 4, applying the GPL to art might mean that the entire document must be distributed under the GPL. But isn't this also the case for CC BY-SA? MS Word however certainly doesn't become under the terms of the GPL, because you're not distributing it - just as it doesn't become CC BY-SA, just because you loaded a CC BY-SA image.
If the game is distributed in binary form, I don't see anything in the CC BY-SA licence that suggests one must release source code (either specifically source code, or in general, anything that was used to create the project)?
(I guess if we're uncertain, perhaps it's better to simply say nothing on the matter, which at least is much better than saying something incorrect.)
OGA-BY sounds good to me - and it seems common that licences are named after the organisation/site/product that introduced it.
Free-BY and Open-BY may imply endorsement/creation by the FSF or OSI respectively (Okay, I don't think that organisations should be able to "own" the words "Free" or "Open", but in the context of Free Software and Open Source, these phrases have been created and promoted by those organisations, and it's probably better to be more specific.)
On NT-BY, the licence hasn't just removed the no technological restrictions, it's also removed no legal additional restrictions (so me putting CC BY art on a distribution platform with a TOS saying "you can't redistribute this" is disallowed, just the same as using DRM to achieve that effect; but both would be okay with OGA-BY). Although a lot of discussion here has focused on the DRM aspect, I don't feel that's more important for the name than the bit about legal restrictions. Also I find the negative "non" confusing - I mean, it's CC BY which says "no legal or technological restrictions", whilst this new licence says no "no legal or technological restrictions", i.e., you can apply those restrictions, so it seems odd to name the licence with a negative.
"I just hate to be forced into creating another license."
Although I'd say a waiver is still another licence - in both cases (checkbox or OGA-BY), it's a modification of an existing licence.
"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."
I think this is still incorrect - the licence can only be distributed under the same (or later version of the same) licence, i.e., CC BY-SA.
I think this misconception came about because the "human readable summary" contained the phrase "similar", but this was never in the licence itself. Instead it said you had to use one of the licences listed at https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses ,but it says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility". They've now updated the human readable summary to just say "same license", together with a link to the compatible licences URL.
Similarly for "This license requires you to release the any modifications to the art under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL." should just say "same license".
"Does using CC-BY-SA art require that an entire project be released as open source?"
I think the question of whether the SA requirement apples to the entire project is a red herring - even if it did apply to the entire game, it would mean that the game has to be released as CC BY-SA. Which is an Open/Free licence, but doesn't require that one must release the source code.
So I'd say that we can definitely say that there's no requirement to release source code - but it's unclear whether they would have to release the game as CC BY-SA.
* If OGA went with a tick box, I would hope it's made clear that the recipient can choose whether to accept the waiver? (At first you might say, why would anyone want the more restrictive version? The answer is, if I want to distribute an Open Source game with a straightforward CC BY asset, rather than some modified licence.)
* Whilst I think the proposed OGA BY licence should be relicencable as CC BY, to be sure, perhaps to be explicit, it could be set up that choosing OGA BY also automatically selects CC BY, as a dual licence.
"Removing the anti-DRM clause still forces any derivatives of the asset to be released under the same license"
But if I distributed my derivative of that asset in a DRM game where it wasn't possible to redistribute/edit/get-hold-of that asset, then users have lost the rights they were supposed to have under the original CC BY-SA licence.
It's not a useless licence as such, GPL v2 managed fine for years - but it does give a loophole to those using DRM. I'm not sure why an artist would want to choose a version of CC BY-SA without the DRM clause, but still wanting the strong copyleft clauses?
I agree that CC BY-SA shouldn't apply to a whole game (indeed, therefore I think it ought to be fine if someone puts DRM on the binary, so long as it doesn't restrict the derived asset in question).
Larger resolutions than you are after, but may be of interest:
http://opengameart.org/content/orc-flare-sprite-sheets
http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-male-sheets
http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-ladies
I tested Tiled out on my Asus Transformer Book - for touchscreen, the GUI buttons could be larger, and the menu may need some thought especially on Android. Using something like a spinner would be better for things like entering tile/map sizes. But it all seems feasible.
For editing, a touchscreen works really well to quickly paint maps. If I plug in my keyboard dock, I have something that works well with both the UI and to use the touchscreen for painting. It would be good to have some way of scrolling using my touchscreen without using the scrollbars - maybe a two-finger pan gesture? Multitouch zoom would be nice too (especially since it's already supported on a touchpad).
Tiled uses Qt which now supports Android, so porting the code shouldn't be a huge problem. Support for multitouch for dragging and zooming should be easy with Qt too, and would be a useful thing to add for the existing platforms also.
I think the way you've done it is fine. If there's only a user name, put that, but sometimes people will say what name should be used as the credit.
"You don't need to link to the licencing rules"
Not sure if I misunderstand this, but note that the URL of the licence must be included (or else the full text of the licence itself) for CC BY 3.0 (although yes, it doesn't have to be implemented as a link).
Just to say that I love the work you've been uploading, and I have been collecting some of it for my own game, Erebus ( http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ ) (I don't think there's any in the current version, but the next release will have several items you've released on OGA, so many thanks for those). My game also uses a lot of the graphics from FLARE, so having graphics that are compatible in terms of lighting and angle is good for me too, and I imagine any other developers wanting to make isometric games - more compatible assets is a good thing.
http://flarerpg.org/tutorials/isometric_intro/ says that FLARE is 45 degrees around, and 30 degrees down (also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_with_isometric_graphics ).
Personally I don't have any requirements for FPS, as this can be defined per-graphic (I don't know about FLARE, but it could well be the same - I see that the animation config files each have a "duration" attribute).
I've attached a spritesheet of these in PNG format (I haven't added transparency, just left as the original images). Easy to do on my Asus Transformer Book tablet :)
@William.Thompsonj: I'm not taking sides as such on whether GPL can apply to art, but I'm not convinced by those examples. For examples 1-3, and 5-6, couldn't you have the same examples for code? E.g., a browser that downloads a GPL plugin to display the content, or if I view a generic program thatt reads and inspects a GPL program (e.g., debugging tools).
The fact that a GPL item A can be read by program B doesn't force B to become GPLed - and that is what is intended, whether A is a program or art. This isn't a problem, because the GPL was never meant to cover those examples. The issue is when B is distributed with A (a "covered work").
As you note, the examples apply to CC BY-SA. I don't think people saying the GPL applies to art want it to apply in these examples - they're talking about when an art is redistributed with a game.
For example 4, applying the GPL to art might mean that the entire document must be distributed under the GPL. But isn't this also the case for CC BY-SA? MS Word however certainly doesn't become under the terms of the GPL, because you're not distributing it - just as it doesn't become CC BY-SA, just because you loaded a CC BY-SA image.
If the game is distributed in binary form, I don't see anything in the CC BY-SA licence that suggests one must release source code (either specifically source code, or in general, anything that was used to create the project)?
(I guess if we're uncertain, perhaps it's better to simply say nothing on the matter, which at least is much better than saying something incorrect.)
OGA-BY sounds good to me - and it seems common that licences are named after the organisation/site/product that introduced it.
Free-BY and Open-BY may imply endorsement/creation by the FSF or OSI respectively (Okay, I don't think that organisations should be able to "own" the words "Free" or "Open", but in the context of Free Software and Open Source, these phrases have been created and promoted by those organisations, and it's probably better to be more specific.)
On NT-BY, the licence hasn't just removed the no technological restrictions, it's also removed no legal additional restrictions (so me putting CC BY art on a distribution platform with a TOS saying "you can't redistribute this" is disallowed, just the same as using DRM to achieve that effect; but both would be okay with OGA-BY). Although a lot of discussion here has focused on the DRM aspect, I don't feel that's more important for the name than the bit about legal restrictions. Also I find the negative "non" confusing - I mean, it's CC BY which says "no legal or technological restrictions", whilst this new licence says no "no legal or technological restrictions", i.e., you can apply those restrictions, so it seems odd to name the licence with a negative.
"I just hate to be forced into creating another license."
Although I'd say a waiver is still another licence - in both cases (checkbox or OGA-BY), it's a modification of an existing licence.
On CC BY-SA:
"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."
I think this is still incorrect - the licence can only be distributed under the same (or later version of the same) licence, i.e., CC BY-SA.
I think this misconception came about because the "human readable summary" contained the phrase "similar", but this was never in the licence itself. Instead it said you had to use one of the licences listed at https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses ,but it says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility". They've now updated the human readable summary to just say "same license", together with a link to the compatible licences URL.
Similarly for "This license requires you to release the any modifications to the art under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL." should just say "same license".
"Does using CC-BY-SA art require that an entire project be released as open source?"
I think the question of whether the SA requirement apples to the entire project is a red herring - even if it did apply to the entire game, it would mean that the game has to be released as CC BY-SA. Which is an Open/Free licence, but doesn't require that one must release the source code.
So I'd say that we can definitely say that there's no requirement to release source code - but it's unclear whether they would have to release the game as CC BY-SA.
Random thoughts on dual licencing:
* If OGA went with a tick box, I would hope it's made clear that the recipient can choose whether to accept the waiver? (At first you might say, why would anyone want the more restrictive version? The answer is, if I want to distribute an Open Source game with a straightforward CC BY asset, rather than some modified licence.)
* Whilst I think the proposed OGA BY licence should be relicencable as CC BY, to be sure, perhaps to be explicit, it could be set up that choosing OGA BY also automatically selects CC BY, as a dual licence.
"Removing the anti-DRM clause still forces any derivatives of the asset to be released under the same license"
But if I distributed my derivative of that asset in a DRM game where it wasn't possible to redistribute/edit/get-hold-of that asset, then users have lost the rights they were supposed to have under the original CC BY-SA licence.
It's not a useless licence as such, GPL v2 managed fine for years - but it does give a loophole to those using DRM. I'm not sure why an artist would want to choose a version of CC BY-SA without the DRM clause, but still wanting the strong copyleft clauses?
I agree that CC BY-SA shouldn't apply to a whole game (indeed, therefore I think it ought to be fine if someone puts DRM on the binary, so long as it doesn't restrict the derived asset in question).
Pages