I agree. I freaking hate how complicated licensing makes things.
Ok, I can get behind that interpretation of term 5. And I can respect the spirit of your desires for this asset.
My job is to make sure developers can use assets without worrying about violating licensing terms. If the terms are not clear, I haven't done my job. We can look into adding OFL to our list of licenses. In the meantime, the assets must be compatible with the licenses we accept. It looks like that's the case, but when the page says CC-BY, but the file says OFL, it tends to make developers worried. As long as it's clear people can use either license when they look at the file(s), then it should be fine. EDIT: you have made this adjustment already. :)
Since you want them to be able to quickly drop the package into their project without having to shuffle files around, what about having two zip files available here? one with the OFL, one with CC-BY? EDIT: Having both the CC-BY.txt and OFL.txt like you have now is fine, just wondering if you prefer two zip files with separate licenses?
Sorry for the huge wall of text, but you should know, one of the main reasons we don't already have OFL in our list of accepted licenses is because of the "no resale" stipulation. That doesn't mean we want others to profit off of your generosity. We don't accept licenses that forbid resale because it creates legal conflicts. For commercial projects especially, but free and open source projects as well. Developers will avoid anything with a "no resale" clause even when they have no intention of reselling that asset. This is because "resale" can attach to the game itself, even if the asset used by the game is free. Or if the game is free - and it is hosted on steam, itch, or any other game hosting platform with ads - that game generates revenue for the site via increased traffic and ad revenue. This could legally make the developer liable for "sales" based on assets that forbid sales. I know that is not what you're concerned about and not something you would ever go after someone for. I just want you to be aware that
1) We insist on assets here using one of the Free-Software-Foundation-approved licenses, and
2) All of those licenses allow people to try* resale of assets.
*That being said, it's generally pretty difficult for someone to successfully re-sell your free assets under CC-BY. They're required to credit you and link back to this page, so any "customer" of theirs would see that attribution, visit this page, and see it is available for free. Why would they bother paying someone when it's obviously free here? The license still allows them to try, though. :P
@Basto: Oh dear, you're right. Thank you for pointing that out.
However, the first revision is not shown by default, so I'm hoping that is acceptable? If this is still an issue, Technopeasant, let me know.
Nice! Would you be willing to include a copy of CC-BY in the zip file as well? or indicate in the LanaPixel_License.txt that users may choose either license? Otherwise it looks like the LanaPixel license is contradicting the CC-BY license.
EDIT: hmm... The 5th term of the SOFL may actually contradict the CC-BY license. If SOFL forbids this font being distributed under any other license, then it can't be distributed under CC-BY as well. Any thoughts?
No problem. :) I didn't mean to sound angry. I wasn't. That big wall of text was meant to explain, not chastise.
Those stipulations suggested by your friend are fairly common, but often either legally unenforceable or they make the assets unusable. Of course they're meant to promote freedom, but they unintentionally cause legal conflicts where any game that used them would be in violation even when the game is free and open source.
I can explain why if you would like to know, but these are all good, so I'll stop typing. Thanks for sharing these. Looking forward to seeing more of your work!
These clearly aren't copied, @InThePixel. Kenney has been around longer than Dume. Actually, Kenney's been doing game art longer than OGA has existed, so it's far more likely if any copying was going on, it would be people copying Kenney.
These are some pretty nice platformer assets. However, the stipulations in the readme file conflict with the licenses accepted here:
Prohibitions
* The asset may not redistribute, lease, license, sub license or offer this asset to any third party "as is" or as a separate attachment from any of your work.
* The asset may not be placed on any website in a complete or archived downloadable format
Under the licenses you've selected (and any other license accepted on OGA) people are allowed to redistribute and offer the asset as is to others. Ironically, this page is already in violation of the 2nd stipulation. You've placed the asset on a website in an archived downloadable format.
Would you be willing to remove those stipulations from the zip file? Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue. Please let me know if you have any questions about this.
You are using control characters not compatible with the site. Be sure to remove all em dashes, curved quotes, and back ticks. Most of them happen from copying and pasting text from a separate word precessor. If you're not sure which characters I'm talking about, copy the text into https://justpaste.it/ and share the link here and I'll help debug it.
From the gallery, clicking on the center part of the music tile will play a preview of the song.
But clicking on the title of the music tile will take you to that song's submission page
Here you can view a detailed description of the song, who the author is, which licenses are available, etc. From there, you can download the song by clicking the link near the bottom of the page under the section labelled "File(s):"
Good to know. Thanks again! :)
I agree. I freaking hate how complicated licensing makes things.
Ok, I can get behind that interpretation of term 5. And I can respect the spirit of your desires for this asset.
My job is to make sure developers can use assets without worrying about violating licensing terms. If the terms are not clear, I haven't done my job. We can look into adding OFL to our list of licenses.
In the meantime, the assets must be compatible with the licenses we accept. It looks like that's the case, but when the page says CC-BY, but the file says OFL, it tends to make developers worried.As long as it's clear people can use either license when they look at the file(s), then it should be fine. EDIT: you have made this adjustment already. :)Since you want them to be able to quickly drop the package into their project without having to shuffle files around, what about having two zip files available here? one with the OFL, one with CC-BY? EDIT: Having both the CC-BY.txt and OFL.txt like you have now is fine, just wondering if you prefer two zip files with separate licenses?
Sorry for the huge wall of text, but you should know, one of the main reasons we don't already have OFL in our list of accepted licenses is because of the "no resale" stipulation. That doesn't mean we want others to profit off of your generosity. We don't accept licenses that forbid resale because it creates legal conflicts. For commercial projects especially, but free and open source projects as well. Developers will avoid anything with a "no resale" clause even when they have no intention of reselling that asset. This is because "resale" can attach to the game itself, even if the asset used by the game is free. Or if the game is free - and it is hosted on steam, itch, or any other game hosting platform with ads - that game generates revenue for the site via increased traffic and ad revenue. This could legally make the developer liable for "sales" based on assets that forbid sales. I know that is not what you're concerned about and not something you would ever go after someone for. I just want you to be aware that
1) We insist on assets here using one of the Free-Software-Foundation-approved licenses, and
2) All of those licenses allow people to try* resale of assets.
*That being said, it's generally pretty difficult for someone to successfully re-sell your free assets under CC-BY. They're required to credit you and link back to this page, so any "customer" of theirs would see that attribution, visit this page, and see it is available for free. Why would they bother paying someone when it's obviously free here? The license still allows them to try, though. :P
@Basto: Oh dear, you're right. Thank you for pointing that out.
However, the first revision is not shown by default, so I'm hoping that is acceptable? If this is still an issue, Technopeasant, let me know.
Nice!
Would you be willing to include a copy of CC-BY in the zip file as well? or indicate in the LanaPixel_License.txt that users may choose either license? Otherwise it looks like the LanaPixel license is contradicting the CC-BY license.EDIT: hmm... The 5th term of the SOFL may actually contradict the CC-BY license. If SOFL forbids this font being distributed under any other license, then it can't be distributed under CC-BY as well. Any thoughts?EDIT2: Fixed, thanks! :)
No problem. :) I didn't mean to sound angry. I wasn't. That big wall of text was meant to explain, not chastise.
Those stipulations suggested by your friend are fairly common, but often either legally unenforceable or they make the assets unusable. Of course they're meant to promote freedom, but they unintentionally cause legal conflicts where any game that used them would be in violation even when the game is free and open source.
I can explain why if you would like to know, but these are all good, so I'll stop typing. Thanks for sharing these. Looking forward to seeing more of your work!
These clearly aren't copied, @InThePixel. Kenney has been around longer than Dume. Actually, Kenney's been doing game art longer than OGA has existed, so it's far more likely if any copying was going on, it would be people copying Kenney.
These are some pretty nice platformer assets.
However, the stipulations in the readme file conflict with the licenses accepted here:Under the licenses you've selected (and any other license accepted on OGA) people are allowed to redistribute and offer the asset as is to others. Ironically, this page is already in violation of the 2nd stipulation. You've placed the asset on a website in an archived downloadable format.Would you be willing to remove those stipulations from the zip file? Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue. Please let me know if you have any questions about this.Curved quotes. Glad you got it to work. :)
You are using control characters not compatible with the site. Be sure to remove all em dashes, curved quotes, and back ticks. Most of them happen from copying and pasting text from a separate word precessor. If you're not sure which characters I'm talking about, copy the text into https://justpaste.it/ and share the link here and I'll help debug it.
From the gallery, clicking on the center part of the music tile will play a preview of the song.
But clicking on the title of the music tile will take you to that song's submission page
Here you can view a detailed description of the song, who the author is, which licenses are available, etc. From there, you can download the song by clicking the link near the bottom of the page under the section labelled "File(s):"
Pages