Good news! Although the above discussion is correct that there are limited options available for unifying the licenses of CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0 assets, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, the derivative in question "asset #4" can be simply licensed CC-BY 4.0.
This is possible because, although some of the assets are CC-BY 3.0 or are derived from other CC-BY 3.0, those parts of the derivative tree already have a waiver from the authors saying *The authors of this content agree to license it under later versions of the licenses they selected above.
Here is the complete derivative tree for the assets in question:
z9484's Remix, aka "Asset #4" (CC-BY 4.0) which is a derivative of:
George_'s 16x16 Game Assets (CC-BY 4.0 though it was previously CC-BY 3.0 up until 10/29/2017) and is also from:
Sharm's 16x16 town remix(CC-BY 3.0 or OGA-BY 3.0)*which is a derivative of:
Therefore, all assets are either already CC-BY 4.0, are CC0 (which can be relicensed to anything), or are CC-BY 3.0 but the authors have pre-approved relicensing to CC-BY 4.0. Yes? No? Thoughts?
Attribution would probably look something like:
"z9484's 16x16 remix (CC-BY 4.0) based on George_'s 16x16 Game Assets [opengameart.org/content/16x16-game-assets], Sharm's 16x16 town remix [opengameart.org/content/16x16-town-remix], Surt's Town Tiles [opengameart.org/content/town-tiles], Reshrike's RPG Indoor Tileset [opengameart.org/content/rpg-indoor-tileset-expansion-1], and Jetrel's RPG item set [opengameart.org/content/rpg-item-set]"
@z9484: I don't believe that would address the needs of the new remixed asset based on the two assets in question. As bluecarrot16 put it, asset #4 could not be shared on OGA twice; once under BY 3.0 and again under BY 4.0 as that would imply a disjunctive OR of the two terms. In other words, it would be no different than saying "you can use either license you prefer, only one needs to be adhered to." Which is not really true for the situation you've outlined.
If you're wanting to know how to be faithful to the terms of the licenses for the purposes of your game, but don't feel the need to share "asset #4" here on OGA, then you could list it in your game's credits as CC BY 3.0 AND CC BY 4.0.
However, if you wish to host the new derivative "asset #4" here on OGA, there is no mechanism for indicating that users must adhere to terms of two separate licenses simultaneously, so it would need to be shared under some single unified license... which I am now unsure is an available option without permission from the authors of both asset #1 and #2.
... though I can't tell if you're confirming or refuting my suggestion. CC BY-SA is forward compatible with later versions but [CC] BY-SA is not? When you say "BY-SA", are you referring to different versions of CC BY-SA or are you referring to CC-BY?
Probably more to do with the fact that botanic is adjusting the php.ini to help me increase the file upload size limit. If it persists for more than 4 hours, consult your administrator again. :P
Seems like a theme. Would you be willing to upload all of these 32 bit artworks as one submission with mutliple images? They get a lot more love that way and it doesn't bombard the site with a flood of small submissions.
Good news! Although the above discussion is correct that there are limited options available for unifying the licenses of CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0 assets, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, the derivative in question "asset #4" can be simply licensed CC-BY 4.0.
This is possible because, although some of the assets are CC-BY 3.0 or are derived from other CC-BY 3.0, those parts of the derivative tree already have a waiver from the authors saying *The authors of this content agree to license it under later versions of the licenses they selected above.
Here is the complete derivative tree for the assets in question:
Therefore, all assets are either already CC-BY 4.0, are CC0 (which can be relicensed to anything), or are CC-BY 3.0 but the authors have pre-approved relicensing to CC-BY 4.0. Yes? No? Thoughts?
Attribution would probably look something like:
Hope that helps.
@z9484: I don't believe that would address the needs of the new remixed asset based on the two assets in question. As bluecarrot16 put it, asset #4 could not be shared on OGA twice; once under BY 3.0 and again under BY 4.0 as that would imply a disjunctive OR of the two terms. In other words, it would be no different than saying "you can use either license you prefer, only one needs to be adhered to." Which is not really true for the situation you've outlined.
If you're wanting to know how to be faithful to the terms of the licenses for the purposes of your game, but don't feel the need to share "asset #4" here on OGA, then you could list it in your game's credits as CC BY 3.0 AND CC BY 4.0.
However, if you wish to host the new derivative "asset #4" here on OGA, there is no mechanism for indicating that users must adhere to terms of two separate licenses simultaneously, so it would need to be shared under some single unified license... which I am now unsure is an available option without permission from the authors of both asset #1 and #2.
Thanks, Botanic.
... though I can't tell if you're confirming or refuting my suggestion. CC BY-SA is forward compatible with later versions but [CC] BY-SA is not? When you say "BY-SA", are you referring to different versions of CC BY-SA or are you referring to CC-BY?
Appreciate you doing so. These errors often go unnoticed for longer than neccessary unless they're reported. :)
Yes. We are working on it. Thank you for your patience. there will be an update here when it appears to be resolved.
>:[
checking things now.
Ok Botanic did his magic. See if that helps.
Probably more to do with the fact that botanic is adjusting the php.ini to help me increase the file upload size limit. If it persists for more than 4 hours, consult your administrator again. :P
Agreed. Let me see what I can do. Was the sylized grassland tileset the 170 MB pack?
Seems like a theme. Would you be willing to upload all of these 32 bit artworks as one submission with mutliple images? They get a lot more love that way and it doesn't bombard the site with a flood of small submissions.EDIT: Fixed, thanks!
Pages