If you want to have flexibility in licensing, I recommend continuing to select both OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0. Although 4 is more forgiving, having both lets the user decide. Why would they choose to use a less forgiving license? Because their other assets may already use OGA-BY 3. They can choose to keep all assets under one license instead of having some be 3 and others be 4.
As for the notice, I would say change it to indicate "the base parts seen in the preview are not included. See ULPCCG <link>" or something. Not a requirement, though. Your call.
"...I have added both OGA-BY 3 as well as the new OGA-BY 4. I don't really know the difference..."
FYI: the difference between OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0 is, in short, brevity and a cure clause. If someone fails to credit you for using these under OGA-BY 3.0, they are immediately in violation and must cease the use of your assets. Under 4.0, they have 30 days to fix the problem. By including both, you have left it up to the users which one they want to apply to their project. Very generous of you, so thank you.
This is great. Please do keep contributing to these assets!
Please see the Universal LPC Character Generator for credits on outfit and base pieces:
If the outfits and base pieces are included in the downloadable file here, then the credits for those pieces must be attributed here. You can include a text file inside the package that details credit (put "See CREDITS.TXT for attribution information" in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section), but you can't outsource the credit to some other page for content downloaded from here. This also affects the licenses. If any part of this package contains assets that are not OGA-BY, then the whole package must licensed under the license common to all components. Is that the case?
NOTE: using derivative assets (stuff you didn't create from scratch) in just the previews (but are not included in the downloadable files) does not affect licensing or attribution.
May I ask what other components, if any, that you didn't make entirely yourself were used in this set? Is any of it derived from other's LPC work? It determines what the correct license and attribution should be.
But you've missed some details on Step #4, Starry:
"...indicate the original author..." (done)
"...as well as a URL to the original asset..." (not done. The url can't just go to the author's page. It needs to go to the specific asset's page.)
"...in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section." (not done. It is fine to attribute the author in the description as well, but attribution should first be listed in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section.)
Again, not strictly required for CC0, but it's helpful for others to be sure this is safe to use... which means if you aren't including it, I have to ask every time I can't find the original. :/ Either way, your call. Thanks for sharing it!
Nice.
If you want to have flexibility in licensing, I recommend continuing to select both OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0. Although 4 is more forgiving, having both lets the user decide. Why would they choose to use a less forgiving license? Because their other assets may already use OGA-BY 3. They can choose to keep all assets under one license instead of having some be 3 and others be 4.
Fantastic. All is good, then. :)
As for the notice, I would say change it to indicate "the base parts seen in the preview are not included. See ULPCCG <link>" or something. Not a requirement, though. Your call.
FYI: the difference between OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0 is, in short, brevity and a cure clause. If someone fails to credit you for using these under OGA-BY 3.0, they are immediately in violation and must cease the use of your assets. Under 4.0, they have 30 days to fix the problem. By including both, you have left it up to the users which one they want to apply to their project. Very generous of you, so thank you.
This is great. Please do keep contributing to these assets!
If the outfits and base pieces are included in the downloadable file here, then the credits for those pieces must be attributed here. You can include a text file inside the package that details credit (put "See CREDITS.TXT for attribution information" in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section), but you can't outsource the credit to some other page for content downloaded from here. This also affects the licenses. If any part of this package contains assets that are not OGA-BY, then the whole package must licensed under the license common to all components. Is that the case?NOTE: using derivative assets (stuff you didn't create from scratch) in just the previews (but are not included in the downloadable files) does not affect licensing or attribution.EDIT: Resolved, thanks! :)
YAY!
May I ask what other components, if any, that you didn't make entirely yourself were used in this set? Is any of it derived from other's LPC work? It determines what the correct license and attribution should be.
@Starry Skydancer: Did you want me to republish the stuff you took down due to the false positive? Or are you still verifying what's going on?
BTW I really appreciate you proactively looking out for everyone, even if it turns out there was not really any risk.
Merged the dormant account with yours.
Also, good idea about the thread. Stickied for others to see.
Did you, though? ;)
Nice find! :)
But you've missed some details on Step #4, Starry:"...indicate the original author..." (done)"...as well as a URL to the original asset..." (not done. The url can't just go to the author's page. It needs to go to the specific asset's page.)"...in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section." (not done. It is fine to attribute the author in the description as well, but attribution should first be listed in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section.)Again, not strictly required for CC0, but it's helpful for others to be sure this is safe to use... which means if you aren't including it, I have to ask every time I can't find the original. :/ Either way, your call. Thanks for sharing it!EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Inspiring!
Bumped for new added content.
Pages