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.
Glad you got a response! It's not a straight answer, but I guess I don't know how much I would have expected one. Here are my thoughts on how this should be addressed in the FAQ:
(1) Highlight the clear case they mention, that -SA sound synched with a moving image effectively requires that the image be released under -SA. (e.g. sword slash sound effects over a non-free sword-slashing animation)
(2) Safer = better. I even think that the uploaders intent may not matter as much as I would like to believe. For instance, imagine:
(i) Person A uploads an asset under -SA, with the intent that only "direct" modifications to the art need a share-alike clause.
(ii) Person B downloads the art and uses it in a closed source, commercial game.
(iii) Person C then demands that Person B abide by the license and release the whole game under -SA (assuming the game constitutes a derivative), even though that was not the original artists intent.
Person A might even state in their submission that they allow use in non-free video games, but I don't know that that would necessarily hold up in court, as it is not a real license. Or perhaps the court would throw out the entire -SA clause on the work, because of loopholes such an exemption might create.
Unless we get clearer guidance on this, and/or GPL licenses, I think OGA's FAQ should be clear that it is only safe to use -SA and GPL work in freely licensed games.
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.
Glad you got a response! It's not a straight answer, but I guess I don't know how much I would have expected one. Here are my thoughts on how this should be addressed in the FAQ:
(1) Highlight the clear case they mention, that -SA sound synched with a moving image effectively requires that the image be released under -SA. (e.g. sword slash sound effects over a non-free sword-slashing animation)
(2) Safer = better. I even think that the uploaders intent may not matter as much as I would like to believe. For instance, imagine:
Unless we get clearer guidance on this, and/or GPL licenses, I think OGA's FAQ should be clear that it is only safe to use -SA and GPL work in freely licensed games.
Pages