Skip to main content

User login

What is OpenID?
  • Log in using OpenID
  • Cancel OpenID login
  • Create new account
  • Request new password
Register
  • Home
  • Browse
    • 2D Art
    • 3D Art
    • Concept Art
    • Textures
    • Music
    • Sound Effects
    • Documents
    • Featured Tutorials
  • Submit Art
  • Collect
    • My Collections
    • Art Collections
  • Forums
  • FAQ
  • Leaderboards
    • All Time
      • Total Points
      • Comments
      • Favorites (All)
      • Favorites (2D)
      • Favorites (3D)
      • Favorites (Concept Art)
      • Favorites (Music)
      • Favorites (Sound)
      • Favorites (Textures)
    • Weekly
      • Total Points
      • Comments
      • Favorites (All)
      • Favorites (2D)
      • Favorites (3D)
      • Favorites (Concept Art)
      • Favorites (Music)
      • Favorites (Sound)
      • Favorites (Textures)
  • ❤ Donate

Primary tabs

  • View
  • Collections
  • Comments(active tab)
  • Followers
  • Friends
  • Favorites
accounts appear to be flagged
Friday, July 22, 2016 - 19:53

Accounts appear to be flagged for pending approval when the account is new. If the account is somehow auto-unapproved due to altering profile settings or something, the account does not ever re-appear on the list of accounts pending approval. p0ss or some higher-level admin than I may be able to see deeper into the database, but as it stands now, there is nothing letting admins know that accounts need REapproval.

I approved SpiderDave's and Duion's account within minutes of their posts.

I don't think that was an
Friday, July 22, 2016 - 11:51

I don't think that was an excuse to ignore the source requirement, it was an example of the artist defining what constitutes source. In that case, the artists contributing to wesnoth aren't ignoring the source requirement, they're saying the assets they submitted are the source.

With code, the definition of source is fairly obvious. With art it isn't nearly as concrete, so they (wesnoth) defer to the preferences of the artist. "preferences" being directly related to "preferred form of modification". This interpretation being accepted by Debian, including newer submissions, not just grandfathered-in stuff from way back in the day, is relevant.

A friend of mine created a small game in machine code... because he's crazy. No, not assembly; Machine code. (He's since made it available in assembly so others can learn how to code like it on their own machines. see http://xlogicx.net/?p=515 and https://github.com/XlogicX, especially https://github.com/XlogicX/tronsolitare etc.) Regardless, there is no true source code other than the machine code itself. What happens when he releases it under GPL? He is the copyright owner, his preferred form of modification is direct bit manipulation of machine code. Will Debian like it? I don't know, but who can complain about him. He's the only one who has the right to complain about his own source. This is an obvious fringe case, but my point is that "preferred form of modification", especially pertaining to art, remains nebulous.

"...we interpret "preferred
Friday, July 22, 2016 - 08:32

"...we interpret "preferred form of the work for making modifications" as the modifiable form that the author chooses to ship us for the source tree..."

...Wesnoth has been accepted in Debian for years - this is not an obscure oversight, this is a fairly major project openly expressing an interpretation of the source clause which has been accepted readily by the Debian maintainers....

Wow. that... that is a good point, MoikMellah.

However this goes, we can
Thursday, July 21, 2016 - 08:27

However this goes, we can start asking (politely) artists using GPL to include more adaptive formats for their assets at the very least.

I understand where Clint is coming from; we want to be the shining example of how to handle licensing. I just don't have the answers to questions like what formats do we accept? Anything lossy* is where I personally draw the line, but as gsliepen pointed out, that isn't flexible enough for many people (or entities... like Debian).

*EDIT: By "lossy" I mean single-file common formats like mp3, ogg, or jpeg. Lossless alternatives being wav, flac, or png. Obviously there are "super-duper-lossless" formats like monstrous zip files containing midi's plus the entire sample library used by that midi (midi's by themselves are insufficient for reproducing the same song! Each computer's audio samples have widely varying quality, so don't try to tell me midi sounds just as good from one computer to another sans the sample library!) or xcf/psd files with individual layers, or audio daws with all tracks separated and synth settings. But what do we accept? Only super-duper-lossless? Even if the artist produced their art in mspaint or windows sound recorder? We've had artists wanting to upload some of the extra "source-y" formats, but found they were unable to because OGA can only handle 200 MB uploads. Yes, the "source code" for a single song was more than 200 MB.

I have no doubt that any restriction on GPL asset formats we come up with will drastically discourage the use of GPL on OGA far more than it will encourage the inclusion of flexible "source" formats. I'm fine with that if you guys are.

@SpiderDave: sorry about the
Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 12:40

@SpiderDave: sorry about the lack of account approval. Your name doesn't show up in the list of users waiting to be approved, so I wasn't even aware of it. I'll try to remedy that.

I agree about not knowing who is a moderator or administrator. Beyond the "Administrator" medal, I can't tell who else is "staff" myself. As for the feedback forum, I don't feel it's all that bad. Posts are always responded to promptly. The issues are not always resolved immediately, but they are addressed. I don't see a helpdesk ticketing system providing any sort of wild improvement, but I'm not against it either. :)

A place to contact admins is a good idea.

My statement about only
Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 12:31

My statement about only copyright holders being able to claim greivances is not an assumption. I can't give any official legal advice, and obviously each legal situation is unique and not subject to generalization, but I'll just say I'm very confident of this. Only the artist (a stakeholder in the copyright) can sue you for infringement of their work.

They would be ridiculous to sue you for not distributing source they didn't provide. That may be an assumption, but cautioning against it is a bit like saying "Don't assume your neighbor will not sue you for borrowing the hammer that he never had." :)

I've always interpreted the
Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 09:13

I've always interpreted the "preferred format" as the format preferred by the IP owner, in this case, the artist. It may not be the best format for editing, but I beleive the purpose of that statement (at least in part) is to disuade 2nd parties (not the original artist) from taking, say, a png file that's released as GPL and converting it to an overly compressed jpeg, adding a water mark, then redistributing that version of the image to try to satisfy the GPL. GPL's like "nah, dude. That isn't the artist's preferred format."

"That's a dangerous attitude. Also, don't forget that it is not just OGA which might get into trouble for not being able to provide the source for works under the GPL, it's also those who download GPL'ed assets for use in their own works that end up having to bear this burden. The whole point of going to OGA instead of most other "free" image/sound/music sites is that we can be sure that things are properly licensed here."

The thing that sets OGA apart from other foss sites is not so much the guarantee of proper licensing (although that is present) It is the attitude of honoring artists wishes even when the license allows things the artist does not wish. A guarantee of being technically compliant with a license is not what we're about. Only the copyright holder (artist) can claim a greivance on a potential infringement of their works. If the copyright holder only provided an mp3 file, why would they claim greivance against OGA or anyone else for failing to provide the "source" when they themselves haven't provided what they consider the source? Who is going to get anyone "in trouble"? I can't sue capbros for distributing bart's work, especially when bart has given capbros his blessing. This isn't just technically allowed, it's also adhereing to the artist's implicit wishes.

Should artists provide GPL artwork in an easily adaptable format? Absolutely. Can they? not always. Must they? I don't think so. Asking artists for flexible formats is great, but demanding they do so is taking a decent license and twisting it into a bureaucratic mess.

p0ss, that popular art thing
Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 08:43

p0ss, that popular art thing is pretty great. I'm bookmarking it for my own use, but I hope it sees the front page some day.

There is still good reason to
Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - 23:33

There is still good reason to license things as both GPL and CC0. If my entire project is GPL, for example, it is simpler to say "all assets are GPL" than it is to say "assets are GPL... except for this one, that one, and another one; they're CC0... oh except for this other thing. That's CC-BY."

EDIT: It is true CC0 allows for relicensing to GPL. I guess you're right about that. In the case of CC0, it can just be relicensed as whatever common license your project uses. My bad. I suppose it might still be helpful to people searching for specifically GPL assets (or whatever) :)

I LOVE that you've included
Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - 08:39

I LOVE that you've included the detailed layered xcf files for all of these! So much more useful!

Pages

  • « first
  • ‹ previous
  • …
  • 385
  • 386
  • 387
  • 388
  • 389
  • 390
  • 391
  • 392
  • 393
  • …
  • next ›
  • last »