Please note I say "GPL artwork requires GPL code is debatable", not "saying GPL artwork requires GPL code is incorrect".
At least in part, it depends on...
... how the art collection is packaged in the game,
... how the author wants their work to be distributed.
One of the main arguments is in #1, where artwork is packaged as game data which is separate from game code. Data in GPL'd applications do not need to be GPL as well, and conversely GPL'd data does not require the application that loads it to be GPL as well.
For example: Loading GPL graphics (the data) into Photoshop (non-GPL code) is not a violation. The derivative output (modified graphics) is still GPL, but Photoshop itself doesn't need to be GPL code just for having loaded GPL data. This isn't a perfect example since it is user-loaded GPL'd data and we're talking about developer loaded GLP'd data, but it illustrates what I'm referring to when I say Data vs Code.
There are some instances, depending on how your game code deals with assets, that the code should be GPL due to the way the GPL assets are incorporated into the game's code, but most game engines can load assets unincorporated or as separate collections of data. This is not intended as a loophole, but it does make a difference and I would even say it is how the GPL is intended to operate: GPL affects code, but not data, and art assets are usually data.
The argument for #2 is that you want to respect the artists wishes regardless of the technical interpretation of the license. It is debatable either way, which means it isn't 100% clear in all situations. Therefore:
If you are a developer seeking to use GPL assets in your non-GPL project, you should ask the artist if they're cool with that. You can still get sued by a pissed-off artist even if your lawyer says you're right.
If you're an artist that would like your GPL work to only be used with GPL code, you should say so on your asset submission page. Just setting the license to GPL is no guarantee the downloader will know that it should only be used with GPL code.
@SavedByZero: how would that be displayed in a 3/4 perspective? This isn't true-overhead or "vanishing-point" overhead view like legend of zelda. The "camera" is tilted slightly to the south, so you're actually looking both down and north at the same time. This is why, in the preview above, you're able to see the rock face of the cave's north wall as if it were a side view. A cave entrance on the south end of a cave would be obstructed by the south-end rock wall.
you could put a north facing entrance, then above that a wall, then above that the rest of the cave that you wanted the entrance to lead to. Would that work? This would imply an entrance through the wall, but it would still be a north-facing entrance on the south side of a south wall.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html"...some programs, particularly video games, can have artwork/audio that is licensed separately from the underlying GPLed game...."
Admittedly, the scenarios outlined are GPL code using non-GPL art, not the other way around.
I am confident there was a clarification that Bart was basing our own FAQ on, but it may have been between Bart and FSF, not a public forum. Looking for other references...
"Using GPL licensed artwork requires you to release your game under GPL too,..."
Debatable (though I'd rather not). The Free Software Foundation has clarified that use of art does not trigger the GPL's linking requirement. In most cases, the artwork must also be GPL, but the game code need not be. This kind of "well technically..." response is ultimately why claudeb recommends avoiding GPL entirely and why LDAsh recommends consulting the author directly... and it's why I agree with both of them. :/
the .wav files are over 200 MB?! even after compressing them individually in .zip files? The upload limit is per file, so if you're uploading all 26 .wav files in one .zip file, that may be the problem. Will it let you upload each one?
Well, these are great, so I can't complain, but .wav files would be amazing.
1. No. It must be CC-BY-NC. Also, I don't believe -SA is more restrictive than -NC.
2. No. -NC is a nightmare. The technicalities go on for days. Putting a free game on a site that has ads could be a violation. You can always ask the author if they're ok with your intended use, but I wouldn't rely on the courts to decide what trivial source of revenue from a completely indirect association constitutes "commercial".
Yes it is fine with other license (except -ND possibly). Yes, -NC generally ends up being more restrictive, even for non commercial applications.
Sorry if this is not the news your were hoping for. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. The best way to use -NC is to contact the author directly and ask if they're cool with how you plan to use it. Even if your usage technically violates the legalise, that doesn't matter as long as the author is ok with it. Get it in writing* and in very clear terms, though.
*A copy of an email showing timestamp and both to: and from: addresses usually counts as "in writing"
Please note I say "GPL artwork requires GPL code is debatable", not "saying GPL artwork requires GPL code is incorrect".
At least in part, it depends on...
One of the main arguments is in #1, where artwork is packaged as game data which is separate from game code. Data in GPL'd applications do not need to be GPL as well, and conversely GPL'd data does not require the application that loads it to be GPL as well.
For example: Loading GPL graphics (the data) into Photoshop (non-GPL code) is not a violation. The derivative output (modified graphics) is still GPL, but Photoshop itself doesn't need to be GPL code just for having loaded GPL data. This isn't a perfect example since it is user-loaded GPL'd data and we're talking about developer loaded GLP'd data, but it illustrates what I'm referring to when I say Data vs Code.
There are some instances, depending on how your game code deals with assets, that the code should be GPL due to the way the GPL assets are incorporated into the game's code, but most game engines can load assets unincorporated or as separate collections of data. This is not intended as a loophole, but it does make a difference and I would even say it is how the GPL is intended to operate: GPL affects code, but not data, and art assets are usually data.
The argument for #2 is that you want to respect the artists wishes regardless of the technical interpretation of the license. It is debatable either way, which means it isn't 100% clear in all situations. Therefore:
@SavedByZero: how would that be displayed in a 3/4 perspective? This isn't true-overhead or "vanishing-point" overhead view like legend of zelda. The "camera" is tilted slightly to the south, so you're actually looking both down and north at the same time. This is why, in the preview above, you're able to see the rock face of the cave's north wall as if it were a side view. A cave entrance on the south end of a cave would be obstructed by the south-end rock wall.
you could put a north facing entrance, then above that a wall, then above that the rest of the cave that you wanted the entrance to lead to. Would that work? This would imply an entrance through the wall, but it would still be a north-facing entrance on the south side of a south wall.
Yay! Thanks.
Suggested tag: "reticle"This discussion regarding a conversation with FSF is a start: http://wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=108802#108802
Also, this blurb from the FSF FAQ:
Admittedly, the scenarios outlined are GPL code using non-GPL art, not the other way around.
I am confident there was a clarification that Bart was basing our own FAQ on, but it may have been between Bart and FSF, not a public forum. Looking for other references...
When you modeled them, no existing Doom models or graphics were used as a guide, correct?
Debatable (though I'd rather not). The Free Software Foundation has clarified that use of art does not trigger the GPL's linking requirement. In most cases, the artwork must also be GPL, but the game code need not be. This kind of "well technically..." response is ultimately why claudeb recommends avoiding GPL entirely and why LDAsh recommends consulting the author directly... and it's why I agree with both of them. :/
the .wav files are over 200 MB?! even after compressing them individually in .zip files? The upload limit is per file, so if you're uploading all 26 .wav files in one .zip file, that may be the problem. Will it let you upload each one?
Well, these are great, so I can't complain, but .wav files would be amazing.
1. No. It must be CC-BY-NC. Also, I don't believe -SA is more restrictive than -NC.
2. No. -NC is a nightmare. The technicalities go on for days. Putting a free game on a site that has ads could be a violation. You can always ask the author if they're ok with your intended use, but I wouldn't rely on the courts to decide what trivial source of revenue from a completely indirect association constitutes "commercial".
Yes it is fine with other license (except -ND possibly). Yes, -NC generally ends up being more restrictive, even for non commercial applications.
Sorry if this is not the news your were hoping for. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. The best way to use -NC is to contact the author directly and ask if they're cool with how you plan to use it. Even if your usage technically violates the legalise, that doesn't matter as long as the author is ok with it. Get it in writing* and in very clear terms, though.
*A copy of an email showing timestamp and both to: and from: addresses usually counts as "in writing"
@Bingoss: every asset on this entire site can be used in commercial projects. Please stop spamming submissions with this question.
Pages