Now everything starts to make sense ... why I can't find some pieces of art any longer ... and why my collection broke when I tried to sort the submissions.
I'd say it's especially tricky since that person submitted artwork under cc0, that can get users into a lot of troubles.
Especially since you have trouble to find the origins if submissions get deleted.
It always makes me kinda sad when people put infringing work under creative commons licenses. (sometimes it's even a common thing to do)
"In order to use my work legally, you must credit me in your video, game, interactive novel, etc. not merely on the info page on Youtube, Google Play, etc." https://soundimage.org/txr-metal-seamless/
I have no idea if that's compatible with creative commons licenses, I mean I really don't know. But I personally would be too afraid to use that as a source.
Public domain is fine as a source, but as soon as it has some restrictions it's not compatible with creative commons licenses. I avoid sources that are not pd or licensed under a Creative Commons license. If you are an US citizen you might also be able to use fair use here and there, but as far as I understand that's never a sure thing and might be decided in court in the end.
No license here is compatible with that of pixabay, but I think you have to refere to the pixabay licnes, even though I'm not sure. You can leave your customly drawn eyes and mouthes so, I think.
You don't have to credit the author, but you still have to adhere to the license. Unless you put something into the public domain (if you can) there is always a license, either an explicit or an implicit one.
Distribute and release is the same thing for me in this context.
As soon as you give your derivatives to somebody you must:
for gpl:
give them the source code, tell them that it's licensed under gpl and give them a copy (or link) of the license
for cc by-sa:
you have to credit the original authors, mention the original works (I think), tell them that it's licensed under cc by-sa and give them a copy (or link) of the license
When you sell your game you have obligations towards your customers (those who receive your derivatives) and nobody else.
You should make sure not to put them into screenshots and promotional material you give away for free, since then again you have those obligations towards everyone who views them.
You decide who you give your derivatives to, but the licenses make sure you give them freedoms and in GPLs case also the sources and for that particular thing you can't charge them.
Only the -nc lincenses forces you give derivatives away for free, but those are not allowed on oga.
No, gpl and cc-by-sa neither require you to release something nor to give it away for free.
They make sure that the users get some defined freedoms.
If you sell it your customers are allowed to modify and redistribute everything that's under gpl or cc-by-sa, that's it.
And well for gpl you also have to include the sources and for cc you also have to credit the original authors.
It might also be an option to sponsor running costs for flare (domain, server etc.).
It differs by time of day.
Sometimes it's fast, sometimes it takes a minute.
I just had to remove the empty nodes, but it took me a while to understand that.
Now everything starts to make sense ... why I can't find some pieces of art any longer ... and why my collection broke when I tried to sort the submissions.
I'd say it's especially tricky since that person submitted artwork under cc0, that can get users into a lot of troubles.
Especially since you have trouble to find the origins if submissions get deleted.
It always makes me kinda sad when people put infringing work under creative commons licenses. (sometimes it's even a common thing to do)
"In order to use my work legally, you must credit me in your video, game, interactive novel, etc. not merely on the info page on Youtube, Google Play, etc." https://soundimage.org/txr-metal-seamless/
I have no idea if that's compatible with creative commons licenses, I mean I really don't know. But I personally would be too afraid to use that as a source.
Did you draw the earth yourself?
Public domain is fine as a source, but as soon as it has some restrictions it's not compatible with creative commons licenses. I avoid sources that are not pd or licensed under a Creative Commons license. If you are an US citizen you might also be able to use fair use here and there, but as far as I understand that's never a sure thing and might be decided in court in the end.
No license here is compatible with that of pixabay, but I think you have to refere to the pixabay licnes, even though I'm not sure. You can leave your customly drawn eyes and mouthes so, I think.
You don't have to credit the author, but you still have to adhere to the license. Unless you put something into the public domain (if you can) there is always a license, either an explicit or an implicit one.
I have my doubts about Pixabay License being compatible with cc0
"a. sale or distribution of Images or Videos as digital stock photos or as digital wallpapers;"
This does not have the addition "without adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value" like point b.
And yes you are not doing that, but cc0 allows your licensees to do that.
EDIT:
This was apparently discussed before https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/warning-pixabay-has-changed-the-licen...
If you acquired the source images last your it would be fine. I don't know how long you were working on it.
Distribute and release is the same thing for me in this context.
As soon as you give your derivatives to somebody you must:
for gpl:
give them the source code, tell them that it's licensed under gpl and give them a copy (or link) of the license
for cc by-sa:
you have to credit the original authors, mention the original works (I think), tell them that it's licensed under cc by-sa and give them a copy (or link) of the license
When you sell your game you have obligations towards your customers (those who receive your derivatives) and nobody else.
You should make sure not to put them into screenshots and promotional material you give away for free, since then again you have those obligations towards everyone who views them.
You decide who you give your derivatives to, but the licenses make sure you give them freedoms and in GPLs case also the sources and for that particular thing you can't charge them.
Only the -nc lincenses forces you give derivatives away for free, but those are not allowed on oga.
No, gpl and cc-by-sa neither require you to release something nor to give it away for free.
They make sure that the users get some defined freedoms.
If you sell it your customers are allowed to modify and redistribute everything that's under gpl or cc-by-sa, that's it.
And well for gpl you also have to include the sources and for cc you also have to credit the original authors.
It might also be an option to sponsor running costs for flare (domain, server etc.).
You represent a group of people, right?
Pages