I would just add that TinyWorlds did something similar. He made a name generator program, and uploaded it under the "Documents" section with both a list of sample names, and the program (http://opengameart.org/content/name-generator-with-lists).
I suspect it would be well received if you released your program under 2D Art, packaged with a sample output font sheet.
At least the FAQ as it is worded now does not make it clear that the entire game CAN be interpreted as a "modification" in some instances. I certainly will move forward thinking that -SA and all GPL licenses would require that I release my source code.
Thanks for sticking with this Cap! They suggest that simply including -SA content is not enough to call the game an adaptation, in their view. However they also load it with caveats that a court may interpret the license text differently, and there are cases where the line blurs.
Overall, my 2 cents is that OGA should only recommend using -SA art in open source games, though acknowledge the ambiguity. I personally would only consider using it in a closed source game if I could get written permission from the copyright owner.
These are awesome, and I am using them in a game I'm currently working on. I just wanted to point out that background0.png (green hills with clouds) has a small transparent patch just to the left of the biggest mountain.
@MedicineStorm Good point about the copyright holder being the only one able to bring suit, and also that they may change their mind eventually.
It's interesting that the CC person specified that the source could be released under any license, because earlier they were unwilling to declare that the game itself did not constitute a derivative. I interpreted that as meaning that "IF your game is not a derivative, you may license it anyway you chose, but still have to license all derivative works under -SA." But it still sounds like in some cases the game may also be a derivative. But in some cases perhaps not.
They do seem to make it clear that -SA does not necessarily bleed over to all included assets.
It sounds like it's context specific. I'm eager to hear if they have anything else to add.
Very unique! Good work!
I would just add that TinyWorlds did something similar. He made a name generator program, and uploaded it under the "Documents" section with both a list of sample names, and the program (http://opengameart.org/content/name-generator-with-lists).
I suspect it would be well received if you released your program under 2D Art, packaged with a sample output font sheet.
At least the FAQ as it is worded now does not make it clear that the entire game CAN be interpreted as a "modification" in some instances. I certainly will move forward thinking that -SA and all GPL licenses would require that I release my source code.
Thanks for sticking with this Cap! They suggest that simply including -SA content is not enough to call the game an adaptation, in their view. However they also load it with caveats that a court may interpret the license text differently, and there are cases where the line blurs.
Overall, my 2 cents is that OGA should only recommend using -SA art in open source games, though acknowledge the ambiguity. I personally would only consider using it in a closed source game if I could get written permission from the copyright owner.
Really nice work!
Huh, it looks like my network admin blocks all weebly sites, not just whitebirdstudio, for some reason. I get this error on them all:
Sorry to have falsely raised a flag!
Wow, you really put a lot of texture detail into very few pixels. This looks great!
Very cool character!
These are awesome, and I am using them in a game I'm currently working on. I just wanted to point out that background0.png (green hills with clouds) has a small transparent patch just to the left of the biggest mountain.
@MedicineStorm Good point about the copyright holder being the only one able to bring suit, and also that they may change their mind eventually.
It's interesting that the CC person specified that the source could be released under any license, because earlier they were unwilling to declare that the game itself did not constitute a derivative. I interpreted that as meaning that "IF your game is not a derivative, you may license it anyway you chose, but still have to license all derivative works under -SA." But it still sounds like in some cases the game may also be a derivative. But in some cases perhaps not.
They do seem to make it clear that -SA does not necessarily bleed over to all included assets.
It sounds like it's context specific. I'm eager to hear if they have anything else to add.
Pages