Understood. Thanks for clarifying. The good news is, when in doubt, go by your favorite license listed in the left sidebar. If it does look like there's a conflict (which this did appear that way to you) there is no problem asking for clarification, or in the case above, you provided clarification in order to resolve the uncertainty. My first response to you was not meant to be critical of your comment; I was trying to resolve the confusion and indicate there is no real conflict and credit remains optional. :)
Yes, you should be inferring the optional attribution based on both the license selected and the the phrasing used: "please credit..." is a request. not a demand. The license is CC0, which doesn't require attribution. If this were the submitter's first submission on the site ever, and there was a clear conflict with the license (like phrasing that demanded something the license doesn't) then it might be appropriate to ask if he is aware of the issue. Given Pro Sensory has been on this site for over 9 years, it is also reasonable to infer he knows how things work.
"...how would I properly indicate that I'm using the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and not the GPL 3.0?..."
You don't need to indicate you aren't adhering to the GPL 3.0 terms. If anyone objects to your failure to share your source code given the use of assets marked GPL, you can tell them to go pound sand only the copyright owner (Skorpio) has any standing to object to how his assets are used, and he already understands the "either/or" nature of multiple licenses on OGA. Giving proper attribution in accordance with CC-BY-SA 3.0 as well as sharing alike any changes you made to the skorpio assets covers all of that. See https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-how-to-credit as an exmaple. In this case, the credit would look something like:
"Space Ship Construction Kit" by Skorpio licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GPL 3.0: https://opengameart.org/node/16894 altered ship designs by ace106ace106, also licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GPL 3.0: [relative file path where your players can access the modified assets you created] EDIT: I missed your last paragraph. No need for this portion if you aren't altering Skorpio's assets.
Note that both CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GPL 3.0 are still listed in the credits even though you are only adhering to one of them. This is to prevent the license spectrum (and thus sum of people/projects who can use the art) from shrinking, as mentioned in the #q-multilicense FAQ above. Keep in mind you are only required to share the assets that are modifications of Skorpio's assets. Ships created by assembling skorpio's ship parts don't really qualify; that's not a new asset. it's just the existing assets above being assembled. If you modify the parts themselves to make a new style of ship-part, that does count and those should be made available to players. Thus the "[relative file path...]" mentioned above, to indicate where the players can find the new assets within the game folder. if that is not feasible given the way your game engine packages files, let me know. EDIT: I missed your last paragraph. No need for this portion if you aren't altering Skorpio's assets.
@ace106ace: Skorpio has dual licensed these assets. You can choose CC-BY-SA 3.0 if you don't like GPL. CC-BY-SA doesn't require you to share your source code, just the assets you make out of Skorpio's assets. Let me know if you have questions.
YEAH!
Oh, that's totally fine. I'm just saying it probably shouldn't be in the "Texture" category. It makes more sense as "2D art"
Understood. Thanks for clarifying. The good news is, when in doubt, go by your favorite license listed in the left sidebar. If it does look like there's a conflict (which this did appear that way to you) there is no problem asking for clarification, or in the case above, you provided clarification in order to resolve the uncertainty. My first response to you was not meant to be critical of your comment; I was trying to resolve the confusion and indicate there is no real conflict and credit remains optional. :)
Yes, you should be inferring the optional attribution based on both the license selected and the the phrasing used: "please credit..." is a request. not a demand. The license is CC0, which doesn't require attribution. If this were the submitter's first submission on the site ever, and there was a clear conflict with the license (like phrasing that demanded something the license doesn't) then it might be appropriate to ask if he is aware of the issue. Given Pro Sensory has been on this site for over 9 years, it is also reasonable to infer he knows how things work.
Are you saying this texture is this from TMWU?
He's not requiring attribution. It's voluntary. He understands the license he selected.
I just saw your last paragraph.
Correct. Just include the aforementioned attribution text in your credits screen and/or your credits.txt and you're good to go.
Yep! It's always been 'pick the one you like most' :) see https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-multilicense
You don't need to indicate you aren't adhering to the GPL 3.0 terms. If anyone objects to your failure to share your source code given the use of assets marked GPL,
you can tell them to go pound sandonly the copyright owner (Skorpio) has any standing to object to how his assets are used, and he already understands the "either/or" nature of multiple licenses on OGA. Giving proper attribution in accordance with CC-BY-SA 3.0 as well as sharing alike any changes you made to the skorpio assets covers all of that. See https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-how-to-credit as an exmaple. In this case, the credit would look something like:Note that both CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GPL 3.0 are still listed in the credits even though you are only adhering to one of them. This is to prevent the license spectrum (and thus sum of people/projects who can use the art) from shrinking, as mentioned in the #q-multilicense FAQ above. Keep in mind you are only required to share the assets that are modifications of Skorpio's assets. Ships created by assembling skorpio's ship parts don't really qualify; that's not a new asset. it's just the existing assets above being assembled.
If you modify the parts themselves to make a new style of ship-part, that does count and those should be made available to players. Thus the "[relative file path...]" mentioned above, to indicate where the players can find the new assets within the game folder. if that is not feasible given the way your game engine packages files, let me know. EDIT: I missed your last paragraph. No need for this portion if you aren't altering Skorpio's assets.@ace106ace: Skorpio has dual licensed these assets. You can choose CC-BY-SA 3.0 if you don't like GPL. CC-BY-SA doesn't require you to share your source code, just the assets you make out of Skorpio's assets. Let me know if you have questions.
Well, these are delightful.
Pages