Other submissions are too recent for archive.org to have a snapshot, but the only other one with a license change shows you made two revisions, one where you note changing the license from "the wrong license; CC-BY-3.0" to something else (Site logs show it already had CC-BY-SA, but you added CC-BY as well) and another where you change the license again; "removed SA license" (instead of both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, you removed the -SA and left just the CC-BY) so the total timeline of licenses on it is:
I should also note there is no mechanism for the site to change licenses on its own. Both you and administrators could change the license, but there is no way to do so without the revision log recording who made the change, Admin or otherwise. In these cases the revision logs indicate Emcee Flesher is the only user who made revisions.
P.S. Although Admins can change licenses on submissions, we do NOT do so. Even when the license is incorrect based on derivative chain, we only mark it as a license issue and allow the submitter to explain and/or make that change themselves.
Nope. They were CC BY-SA 4.0 from the beginning. Site logs show the initial submission was set to CC-BY-SA 4.0, not CC-BY initially, then changed later. Confirmed by Archive.org on their very first snapshot of that submission: https://web.archive.org/web/20210423082200/https://opengameart.org/conte...
Would you be willing to modify the medkits? Specifically the ones with the red cross on a white background. That symbol is legally protected and cannot be used in video games without permission from the International Red Cross.
Links on submissions with potential licensing issues are disabled to prevent the proliferation of assets that the author may not wish to be distributed. In this case, you clarified the license and do indeed wish those assets to be distributed, so the link was re-enabled along with the downloads here. :)
Hooray! congratulations! Downloaded. I still have to download FLARE as well, since I haven't played the original either. Always wanted to, so this seems like a good opportunity to start.
... Or should I play through the original campaign first before trying this mod?
meh. I'm convinced that label is unrelated to the choice of content. This art has a fairly cohesive style and perspective, and is - quite frankly - all pretty darn good compared to some other art we have here on OGA. Both of which suggests this was collected here with intent separate from "not good."
Some confusion about licensing terms here. The license you've selected is GPL, the copyright notice text describes CC-BY-ND, and the Q/A blurb describes a proprietary -NC license.
It is fine to link to other premium content for which your customers can purchase additional content, but the content here on OGA must be under one of the available licenses. It must be clear which license are being applied to the content here and with no terms that conflict.
-ND licenses are not accepted on OGA. -NC licenses are not accepted on OGA. Proprietary pay-to-play licenses are not accepted on OGA. Although it is fine to apply such licensing to externally hosted content, it should be clear such terms do not apply to the content hosted here.
Would you be willing to commit to the terms of one of OGA's accepted licenses, omitting the terms for others on this submission? I must mark this as having a licensing issue in the meantime, in order to protect your wishes. Let me know if you have any questions.
The best way to credit BY-SA work really is to include the attribution of the asset you're deriving this from. Although a simple link to the original submission would indeed be more concise, it would not be entirely adherent to the terms of the license..
Yes, BY-SA can end up being a huge chain of accumulated attributions. The full list is still requried to be attributed. In this case the original is CC0, which doesn't require attribution, but this wasn't derived from the original CC0, it was derived from BY-SA, which must include all previous credits as well. You could shorten it to something like "Original by Hyptosis, modified by ElizaWy and Emcee Flesher. Source: https://opengameart.org/node/95520" but it still should have the attribution from the asset you derived it from, which mentions Hyptosis. (as you have already done. thanks) ElizaWy was not required to credit Hyptosis, but because she chose to do so, you are required to do so. :)
The stipulation forbidding the resale of the assets is unenforcable. In fact, it is not allowed by the license selected. This isn't because we want others to profit off of your hard work, it's because restrictions like "no reselling" create weird legal problems that make the assets nearly impossible to use, even in non-commercial games. Would you be willing to omit the part about "Reselling of those assets is strictly forbidden"? Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue to protect your interests.
With CC-BY, it is actually pretty hard for someone to resell these assets successfully anyway. On any page where they would sell these, they would be requried to have a link back to this page. Their potential customers would see that it is available here for free, and there would be no reason to pay that other person for them. The point is they are still allowed to try to resell it, even if it would not really be effective. :)
Other submissions are too recent for archive.org to have a snapshot, but the only other one with a license change shows you made two revisions, one where you note changing the license from "the wrong license; CC-BY-3.0" to something else (Site logs show it already had CC-BY-SA, but you added CC-BY as well) and another where you change the license again; "removed SA license" (instead of both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, you removed the -SA and left just the CC-BY) so the total timeline of licenses on it is:
I should also note there is no mechanism for the site to change licenses on its own. Both you and administrators could change the license, but there is no way to do so without the revision log recording who made the change, Admin or otherwise. In these cases the revision logs indicate Emcee Flesher is the only user who made revisions.
P.S. Although Admins can change licenses on submissions, we do NOT do so. Even when the license is incorrect based on derivative chain, we only mark it as a license issue and allow the submitter to explain and/or make that change themselves.
Nope. They were CC BY-SA 4.0 from the beginning. Site logs show the initial submission was set to CC-BY-SA 4.0, not CC-BY initially, then changed later. Confirmed by Archive.org on their very first snapshot of that submission: https://web.archive.org/web/20210423082200/https://opengameart.org/conte...
EDIT: clarity.
I love it!
Would you be willing to modify the medkits? Specifically the ones with the red cross on a white background. That symbol is legally protected and cannot be used in video games without permission from the International Red Cross.
Links on submissions with potential licensing issues are disabled to prevent the proliferation of assets that the author may not wish to be distributed. In this case, you clarified the license and do indeed wish those assets to be distributed, so the link was re-enabled along with the downloads here. :)
I also like the world map. I adore yd's map making tutorial.
Hooray! congratulations! Downloaded. I still have to download FLARE as well, since I haven't played the original either. Always wanted to, so this seems like a good opportunity to start.
... Or should I play through the original campaign first before trying this mod?
meh. I'm convinced that label is unrelated to the choice of content. This art has a fairly cohesive style and perspective, and is - quite frankly - all pretty darn good compared to some other art we have here on OGA. Both of which suggests this was collected here with intent separate from "not good."
Some confusion about licensing terms here. The license you've selected is GPL, the copyright notice text describes CC-BY-ND, and the Q/A blurb describes a proprietary -NC license.It is fine to link to other premium content for which your customers can purchase additional content, but the content here on OGA must be under one of the available licenses. It must be clear which license are being applied to the content here and with no terms that conflict.-ND licenses are not accepted on OGA. -NC licenses are not accepted on OGA. Proprietary pay-to-play licenses are not accepted on OGA. Although it is fine to apply such licensing to externally hosted content, it should be clear such terms do not apply to the content hosted here.Would you be willing to commit to the terms of one of OGA's accepted licenses, omitting the terms for others on this submission? I must mark this as having a licensing issue in the meantime, in order to protect your wishes. Let me know if you have any questions.EDIT: Fixed, thanks!
The best way to credit BY-SA work really is to include the attribution of the asset you're deriving this from. Although a simple link to the original submission would indeed be more concise, it would not be entirely adherent to the terms of the license..
Yes, BY-SA can end up being a huge chain of accumulated attributions. The full list is still requried to be attributed. In this case the original is CC0, which doesn't require attribution, but this wasn't derived from the original CC0, it was derived from BY-SA, which must include all previous credits as well. You could shorten it to something like "Original by Hyptosis, modified by ElizaWy and Emcee Flesher. Source: https://opengameart.org/node/95520" but it still should have the attribution from the asset you derived it from, which mentions Hyptosis. (as you have already done. thanks) ElizaWy was not required to credit Hyptosis, but because she chose to do so, you are required to do so. :)
Some cool sprites!
The stipulation forbidding the resale of the assets is unenforcable. In fact, it is not allowed by the license selected. This isn't because we want others to profit off of your hard work, it's because restrictions like "no reselling" create weird legal problems that make the assets nearly impossible to use, even in non-commercial games. Would you be willing to omit the part about "Reselling of those assets is strictly forbidden"? Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue to protect your interests.With CC-BY, it is actually pretty hard for someone to resell these assets successfully anyway. On any page where they would sell these, they would be requried to have a link back to this page. Their potential customers would see that it is available here for free, and there would be no reason to pay that other person for them. The point is they are still allowed to try to resell it, even if it would not really be effective. :)EDIT: Fixed, thanks!
Pages