My statement about only copyright holders being able to claim greivances is not an assumption. I can't give any official legal advice, and obviously each legal situation is unique and not subject to generalization, but I'll just say I'm very confident of this. Only the artist (a stakeholder in the copyright) can sue you for infringement of their work.
They would be ridiculous to sue you for not distributing source they didn't provide. That may be an assumption, but cautioning against it is a bit like saying "Don't assume your neighbor will not sue you for borrowing the hammer that he never had." :)
I've always interpreted the "preferred format" as the format preferred by the IP owner, in this case, the artist. It may not be the best format for editing, but I beleive the purpose of that statement (at least in part) is to disuade 2nd parties (not the original artist) from taking, say, a png file that's released as GPL and converting it to an overly compressed jpeg, adding a water mark, then redistributing that version of the image to try to satisfy the GPL. GPL's like "nah, dude. That isn't the artist's preferred format."
"That's a dangerous attitude. Also, don't forget that it is not just OGA which might get into trouble for not being able to provide the source for works under the GPL, it's also those who download GPL'ed assets for use in their own works that end up having to bear this burden. The whole point of going to OGA instead of most other "free" image/sound/music sites is that we can be sure that things are properly licensed here."
The thing that sets OGA apart from other foss sites is not so much the guarantee of proper licensing (although that is present) It is the attitude of honoring artists wishes even when the license allows things the artist does not wish. A guarantee of being technically compliant with a license is not what we're about. Only the copyright holder (artist) can claim a greivance on a potential infringement of their works. If the copyright holder only provided an mp3 file, why would they claim greivance against OGA or anyone else for failing to provide the "source" when they themselves haven't provided what they consider the source? Who is going to get anyone "in trouble"? I can't sue capbros for distributing bart's work, especially when bart has given capbros his blessing. This isn't just technically allowed, it's also adhereing to the artist's implicit wishes.
Should artists provide GPL artwork in an easily adaptable format? Absolutely. Can they? not always. Must they? I don't think so. Asking artists for flexible formats is great, but demanding they do so is taking a decent license and twisting it into a bureaucratic mess.
There is still good reason to license things as both GPL and CC0. If my entire project is GPL, for example, it is simpler to say "all assets are GPL" than it is to say "assets are GPL... except for this one, that one, and another one; they're CC0... oh except for this other thing. That's CC-BY."
EDIT: It is true CC0 allows for relicensing to GPL. I guess you're right about that. In the case of CC0, it can just be relicensed as whatever common license your project uses. My bad. I suppose it might still be helpful to people searching for specifically GPL assets (or whatever) :)
Code? It sounds like pointcache is talking about forking art assets.
What kind of advantages would an automatic branching of artwork provide? Sounds interesting. Derivatives are certainly allowed, but it's currently a somewhat manual process; "here is some new art. I derived it from Kenny's set. Mention me, and also Kenny, in the credits" sort of thing.
I understand the package is over the 200 MB limit, but you really should break it up into smaller packages of useable assets and upload them to OGA. I don't think uploading to a game demo and then linking to the assets is the best way. Would you be willling to share the assets in a form that isn't so platform specific? How you share your assets is your choice, but many people who might want to use these may not be using Unity3D.
I should specify this is not because OGA wants to cater exclusively to commercial projects (although being useful to such projects is a great thing!) It is really more about NC (non-commercial) licenses having the side effect of being very cumbersome for free and open projects, which is definitely something this site is all about. :)
If there is some component not compatible with commercial use, you probably shouldn't submit it to OGA. All licenses on OGA allow commercial use. Sorry.
My statement about only copyright holders being able to claim greivances is not an assumption. I can't give any official legal advice, and obviously each legal situation is unique and not subject to generalization, but I'll just say I'm very confident of this. Only the artist (a stakeholder in the copyright) can sue you for infringement of their work.
They would be ridiculous to sue you for not distributing source they didn't provide. That may be an assumption, but cautioning against it is a bit like saying "Don't assume your neighbor will not sue you for borrowing the hammer that he never had." :)
I've always interpreted the "preferred format" as the format preferred by the IP owner, in this case, the artist. It may not be the best format for editing, but I beleive the purpose of that statement (at least in part) is to disuade 2nd parties (not the original artist) from taking, say, a png file that's released as GPL and converting it to an overly compressed jpeg, adding a water mark, then redistributing that version of the image to try to satisfy the GPL. GPL's like "nah, dude. That isn't the artist's preferred format."
The thing that sets OGA apart from other foss sites is not so much the guarantee of proper licensing (although that is present) It is the attitude of honoring artists wishes even when the license allows things the artist does not wish. A guarantee of being technically compliant with a license is not what we're about. Only the copyright holder (artist) can claim a greivance on a potential infringement of their works. If the copyright holder only provided an mp3 file, why would they claim greivance against OGA or anyone else for failing to provide the "source" when they themselves haven't provided what they consider the source? Who is going to get anyone "in trouble"? I can't sue capbros for distributing bart's work, especially when bart has given capbros his blessing. This isn't just technically allowed, it's also adhereing to the artist's implicit wishes.
Should artists provide GPL artwork in an easily adaptable format? Absolutely. Can they? not always. Must they? I don't think so. Asking artists for flexible formats is great, but demanding they do so is taking a decent license and twisting it into a bureaucratic mess.
p0ss, that popular art thing is pretty great. I'm bookmarking it for my own use, but I hope it sees the front page some day.
There is still good reason to license things as both GPL and CC0. If my entire project is GPL, for example, it is simpler to say "all assets are GPL" than it is to say "assets are GPL... except for this one, that one, and another one; they're CC0... oh except for this other thing. That's CC-BY."
EDIT: It is true CC0 allows for relicensing to GPL. I guess you're right about that. In the case of CC0, it can just be relicensed as whatever common license your project uses. My bad. I suppose it might still be helpful to people searching for specifically GPL assets (or whatever) :)
I LOVE that you've included the detailed layered xcf files for all of these! So much more useful!
Code? It sounds like pointcache is talking about forking art assets.
What kind of advantages would an automatic branching of artwork provide? Sounds interesting. Derivatives are certainly allowed, but it's currently a somewhat manual process; "here is some new art. I derived it from Kenny's set. Mention me, and also Kenny, in the credits" sort of thing.
I understand the package is over the 200 MB limit, but you really should break it up into smaller packages of useable assets and upload them to OGA. I don't think uploading to a game demo and then linking to the assets is the best way. Would you be willling to share the assets in a form that isn't so platform specific? How you share your assets is your choice, but many people who might want to use these may not be using Unity3D.
What sounds are used from chrono trigger?
Being inspired by Chrono Trigger is awesome! :) Using sounds from Chrono Trigger is a possible licensing issue. :(
I should specify this is not because OGA wants to cater exclusively to commercial projects (although being useful to such projects is a great thing!) It is really more about NC (non-commercial) licenses having the side effect of being very cumbersome for free and open projects, which is definitely something this site is all about. :)
If there is some component not compatible with commercial use, you probably shouldn't submit it to OGA. All licenses on OGA allow commercial use. Sorry.
Pages