The readme in this demo includes a stipulation that these cannot be redistributed or resold. All licenses on OGA allow this. I see this is intended to apply to the greater pack of 80+ assets, but it shouldn't be included in the demo when it conflicts with the demo's license. Would you be willing to modify or omit that stipulation?
I am also not a lawyer, but I'll throw in my 2 cents:
@highlighty: Yes, you cannot leave out which license the assets are under. Listing the author is a start, but you should be linking to the asset itself as well as indicating the license. See FAQ: "How should I credit the artist?"
CC-BY-SA almost always only applies to the assets, not the game executable. But as remaxim has pointed out, the assets have been embedded within the executable and/or data pack. Since users cannot access the assets in their native format, either the executable itself must also be licensed CC-BY-SA, or the assets must be separated to avoid violating the DRM clause. Or, if you've elected to use GPL for these assets instead, embedded resources definitely require the executable to be released under the GPL license.
@remaxim: I don't believe GPL requires attribution unless the author explicitly requests it. I recommend adding some text to the "copyright/attribution notice" section to make that an explicit request. Something like "Please credit remaxim by putting the following text on your credits screen/file: [attribution instructions here]"
Looks pretty nice. Did you create all these textures?
The stipulation "Don't use for print and advertisement" is unenforcable. CC0 allows use in print and ads. Are you willing to forego that stipulation? This also applies to similar stipulations recently added to your CC-BY submissions.
GPL is likely the most difficult to use in a closed-source project. However, it is still possible to do so. It depends on how the GPL-licensed components are used. There are ways of incorporating content that would trigger the GPL linking requirement, meaning anything alongside the GPL assets would necessarily also be GPL. This is a topic of huge contention, so I will say it is unlikely you will find a sollid answer on this. I am not equipped to give much more advice than my statement above on GPL. I personally think it is the worst license we accept here on OGA just for how difficult it is to work with, even in non-commercial open-source projects.
CC-BY-SA is also surrounded by contention on the topic of it's viral effect, though to a far lesser degree. That is, does it infect the rest of the project (including code) with the CC-BY-SA license? I can fairly confidently answer "no, it does not make the project's code also CC-BY-SA".
Any derivatives of CC-BY-SA artwork must also be CC-BY-SA. It is one thing to take music, sound effects, 3D models, or 2D graphics and modify them into some new form of that same medium. That makes sense, but morphing such assets intoprogramming code? That would be truly bizzarre. Game code may reference such assets, it may utilize such assets, but I have never seen game code made from such assets. Therefore, the game code would not be required to be licensed CC-BY-SA just by using CC-BY-SA licensed assets.
I say I am confident in this opinion, but if you're looking for absolute surity, noting short of hiring a lawyer will do, I'm afraid. People will be disagreeing about this interpretation of CC-BY-SA forever, as demonstrated by the unending discussions about this topic already scattered across OGA:
You may ask that people not use these assets in such productions, but that request would be voluntary on the users part. It is possible people may still use these songs in the kind of work you do not agree with. They may not, however, imply you have endorsed or support their usage. Are you ok with that?
Please use an audio file as the first preview file. The album art is neat ( and ok to use as the second preview file) but people can't hear what your music is like from the image.
Then why not leave the old version until the new one was ready to replace it with? Several people had added the old one to thier collections for making their games, but are unable to find it because the new version is not linked to it.
Nice! Its coming together, huh?
The readme in this demo includes a stipulation that these cannot be redistributed or resold. All licenses on OGA allow this. I see this is intended to apply to the greater pack of 80+ assets, but it shouldn't be included in the demo when it conflicts with the demo's license. Would you be willing to modify or omit that stipulation?
I am also not a lawyer, but I'll throw in my 2 cents:
@highlighty: Yes, you cannot leave out which license the assets are under. Listing the author is a start, but you should be linking to the asset itself as well as indicating the license. See FAQ: "How should I credit the artist?"
CC-BY-SA almost always only applies to the assets, not the game executable. But as remaxim has pointed out, the assets have been embedded within the executable and/or data pack. Since users cannot access the assets in their native format, either the executable itself must also be licensed CC-BY-SA, or the assets must be separated to avoid violating the DRM clause. Or, if you've elected to use GPL for these assets instead, embedded resources definitely require the executable to be released under the GPL license.
@remaxim: I don't believe GPL requires attribution unless the author explicitly requests it. I recommend adding some text to the "copyright/attribution notice" section to make that an explicit request. Something like "Please credit remaxim by putting the following text on your credits screen/file: [attribution instructions here]"
Looks pretty nice. Did you create all these textures?
The stipulation "Don't use for print and advertisement" is unenforcable. CC0 allows use in print and ads. Are you willing to forego that stipulation? This also applies to similar stipulations recently added to your CC-BY submissions.Not quite.
GPL is likely the most difficult to use in a closed-source project. However, it is still possible to do so. It depends on how the GPL-licensed components are used. There are ways of incorporating content that would trigger the GPL linking requirement, meaning anything alongside the GPL assets would necessarily also be GPL. This is a topic of huge contention, so I will say it is unlikely you will find a sollid answer on this. I am not equipped to give much more advice than my statement above on GPL. I personally think it is the worst license we accept here on OGA just for how difficult it is to work with, even in non-commercial open-source projects.
CC-BY-SA is also surrounded by contention on the topic of it's viral effect, though to a far lesser degree. That is, does it infect the rest of the project (including code) with the CC-BY-SA license? I can fairly confidently answer "no, it does not make the project's code also CC-BY-SA".
Any derivatives of CC-BY-SA artwork must also be CC-BY-SA. It is one thing to take music, sound effects, 3D models, or 2D graphics and modify them into some new form of that same medium. That makes sense, but morphing such assets into programming code? That would be truly bizzarre. Game code may reference such assets, it may utilize such assets, but I have never seen game code made from such assets. Therefore, the game code would not be required to be licensed CC-BY-SA just by using CC-BY-SA licensed assets.
I say I am confident in this opinion, but if you're looking for absolute surity, noting short of hiring a lawyer will do, I'm afraid. People will be disagreeing about this interpretation of CC-BY-SA forever, as demonstrated by the unending discussions about this topic already scattered across OGA:
Ok good... And it happens to be a suggestion I agree with. :)
You may ask that people not use these assets in such productions, but that request would be voluntary on the users part. It is possible people may still use these songs in the kind of work you do not agree with. They may not, however, imply you have endorsed or support their usage. Are you ok with that?
Please use an audio file as the first preview file. The album art is neat ( and ok to use as the second preview file) but people can't hear what your music is like from the image.EDIT: Fixed, thanks!
Ok, cool. Thanks. Great song, by the way.
Then why not leave the old version until the new one was ready to replace it with? Several people had added the old one to thier collections for making their games, but are unable to find it because the new version is not linked to it.
Oh. Why delete it instead of just editing it to have the new version?
Pages