"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"
If there are restrictions on how these assets can be distributed or sold, they can't be licensed CC-BY-SA.
It's unlikely anyone would be very successful selling your assets as-is when the attribution would make it clear to potential buyers that it is available for free, but they are still allowed to try. That part is necessary for the freedoms of the license to be effective.
Of course you can impose such limitations on the license of the 'premium' full asset pack, but would you be willing to forego those restrictions for this free version so they can still be hosted here on OGA? Until then I have to mark this as having a licensing issue to prevent people misunderstanding your desires with this submission. Let me know if you have any questions.
Checked EULA. As long as a professional (paid copy. Not an evaluation, student, or hacked) version of photoshop was used, these are all good. Thank you for your patience. :)
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.
Nice addtion.
If this is derived from CharlesGabriel's base, it can't be licensed CC0 since the original is CC-BY. Can you edit the license to match?
Thanks.
And thank you for sharing! :)
Can you remove the stipulations from the READ ME.txt inside the .zip file as well?If there are restrictions on how these assets can be distributed or sold, they can't be licensed CC-BY-SA.It's unlikely anyone would be very successful selling your assets as-is when the attribution would make it clear to potential buyers that it is available for free, but they are still allowed to try. That part is necessary for the freedoms of the license to be effective.Of course you can impose such limitations on the license of the 'premium' full asset pack, but would you be willing to forego those restrictions for this free version so they can still be hosted here on OGA? Until then I have to mark this as having a licensing issue to prevent people misunderstanding your desires with this submission. Let me know if you have any questions.Checked EULA. As long as a professional (paid copy. Not an evaluation, student, or hacked) version of photoshop was used, these are all good. Thank you for your patience. :)
Pages