"How would it work to merge two submissions that don't share common licensing? For example, one submission is under GPL only & the other under CC BY-SA."
The answer may be "it won't work", unfortunately. However, there is a specific provision in cc by-sa 4.0 (not in earlier versions) that may allow relicensing derivatives into GPL 3.0 (not other versions). Any chance one is CC BY-SA 4 and the other is GPL 3?
Not a bad idea. I'm not the one who would be able to implement it, but until something like that is available I could probably "bump" submissions on a case-by-case basis. It has to be done one at a time, so I would hope it's relatively infrequent. Just let me know when a big update is happening to a submission and I'll see about making sure people see the latest and greatest stuff. :)
I don't want people to abuse this, so I'm going to insist the updates are more than minor changes. However, in your case, AndumDeluge, I'm pretty confident the submission I assume you're referring to would qualify :)
Also, if it turns out there are other ramifications to this I didn't foresee, I'll have to discontinue. Just putting that out there.
Option B. :) Though people are encouraged to keep both if possible. Unfortunately it isn't always possible due to the licenses of other works in a derivative.
You've complained numerous times in the first 4 hours you've been on OGA, and we've done pretty well to address those complaints already. We already warn uploaders that they shouldn't upload questionable content. We warn them in multiple places. Sometimes they do anyway. Sometimes we don't have telepathic powers and don't realize right away they are questionable. However, as soon as we do realize, we correct the situation.
If you're against people uploading questionable content, why would you post a script on how to extract and use the questionable portions of a game package?
I would say "thanks for pointing out an issue with copyright" but there isn't one here. The sounds you referred to were never part of this submission.
This very package was uploaded to OGA before by a different user, but it included the questionable portions I have omitted, so it was unpublished. The original uploader refused to stop uploading questionable content, refused to admit the content was unethical, and refused to correct submissions with questionable licenses. For these reasons, he was banned. Don't act like OGA welcomes copyright infringement. When we find it, we deal with it.
Thanks. Fixed. Roots, let me know if anything looks out of place.
"If this has LPC components, shouldn't GPL 3.0 be listed in the licenses?"
It would be ideal, but it is not required. All components that went into this derivative were multi-licensed (or license-convertable) with CC-BY-SA, so just having CC-BY-SA as the license here is allowed. It may even be that GPL is not an option despite it being one of the LPC licenses; If any of the other non-LPC components don't also include GPL as an available license, this derivative can't include it either. I don't know if that's the case, though. I'm not clear about which non-LPC content is derived above.
That is correct; Multiple licenses on a submission means the downloader may choose any one of the licenses to follow. There is no obligation to follow all of them.
Yeah, CC0 kinda makes the other licenses unneccessary. However, some people have listed CC0 alongside other licenses so that when people search for GPL, or CC-BY, etc., they'll see that submission, even though it's really CC0. Only listing CC0 as the license would not show up in a search for any other license. It isn't really necessary, but it might help a few developers who don't think to search for CC0 as well as their project's license.
...And don't worry about it. If there were a contest for "least number of licensing mistakes", I'd be losing. :)
See also
Secret long lost buried treasure! I love this!
The answer may be "it won't work", unfortunately. However, there is a specific provision in cc by-sa 4.0 (not in earlier versions) that may allow relicensing derivatives into GPL 3.0 (not other versions). Any chance one is CC BY-SA 4 and the other is GPL 3?
This game looks like a lot of fun. I'm interested in those formulas and statistical graphs for balancing, too. How does that work?
Does any of Scorpio's stuff match what you're looking for? http://opengameart.org/users/skorpio
Not a bad idea. I'm not the one who would be able to implement it, but until something like that is available I could probably "bump" submissions on a case-by-case basis. It has to be done one at a time, so I would hope it's relatively infrequent. Just let me know when a big update is happening to a submission and I'll see about making sure people see the latest and greatest stuff. :)
I don't want people to abuse this, so I'm going to insist the updates are more than minor changes. However, in your case, AndumDeluge, I'm pretty confident the submission I assume you're referring to would qualify :)
Also, if it turns out there are other ramifications to this I didn't foresee, I'll have to discontinue. Just putting that out there.
Option B. :) Though people are encouraged to keep both if possible. Unfortunately it isn't always possible due to the licenses of other works in a derivative.
You've complained numerous times in the first 4 hours you've been on OGA, and we've done pretty well to address those complaints already. We already warn uploaders that they shouldn't upload questionable content. We warn them in multiple places. Sometimes they do anyway. Sometimes we don't have telepathic powers and don't realize right away they are questionable. However, as soon as we do realize, we correct the situation.
If you're against people uploading questionable content, why would you post a script on how to extract and use the questionable portions of a game package?
I would say "thanks for pointing out an issue with copyright" but there isn't one here. The sounds you referred to were never part of this submission.
This very package was uploaded to OGA before by a different user, but it included the questionable portions I have omitted, so it was unpublished. The original uploader refused to stop uploading questionable content, refused to admit the content was unethical, and refused to correct submissions with questionable licenses. For these reasons, he was banned. Don't act like OGA welcomes copyright infringement. When we find it, we deal with it.
Thanks. Fixed. Roots, let me know if anything looks out of place.
It would be ideal, but it is not required. All components that went into this derivative were multi-licensed (or license-convertable) with CC-BY-SA, so just having CC-BY-SA as the license here is allowed. It may even be that GPL is not an option despite it being one of the LPC licenses; If any of the other non-LPC components don't also include GPL as an available license, this derivative can't include it either. I don't know if that's the case, though. I'm not clear about which non-LPC content is derived above.
That is correct; Multiple licenses on a submission means the downloader may choose any one of the licenses to follow. There is no obligation to follow all of them.
Yeah, CC0 kinda makes the other licenses unneccessary. However, some people have listed CC0 alongside other licenses so that when people search for GPL, or CC-BY, etc., they'll see that submission, even though it's really CC0. Only listing CC0 as the license would not show up in a search for any other license. It isn't really necessary, but it might help a few developers who don't think to search for CC0 as well as their project's license.
...And don't worry about it. If there were a contest for "least number of licensing mistakes", I'd be losing. :)
Pages