If these are derived from various licenses, this submission must adopt the more restrictive license. Displaying both CC-BY 4.0 and CC0 implies people may use all the sound effects herein under the terms of just CC0 if they so chose, which does not adhere to the samples under CC-BY 4.0. The credits.txt should remain as-is, so that people may elect to use the individual CC0 samples under that license, but if people are going by the overall license, it should be CC-BY 4.0 to avoid bad assumptions.
Revision notes are publicly visible in the "revision" tab, but only to those who are logged in. Notes like this should probably be added to the description rather than comments section.
Any license terms that apply to the files in the "File(s)" section must be forthright and clear. The terms hidden in the single frame of the preview image are both obfuscated and illegible. If they are the same terms as the license indicated in the "License(s)" section, there is no need to include them at all. If they are not the same as the selected "License(s)", then they are in conflict. Please remove the terms or make them available in plain text.
I think it would be easier to include a flag/checkbox/dropdown menu in the site search that restricted the search to specific collection(s) such as "my downloads" or "my favorites"
Either way, a good idea, so I'll keep that in mind for the next site version.
@DocHHH: what is the nature of your confusion? The previews seem to be a good representation of how the "File(s)" could be used. Was your question not adressed by the author's note?
"Note: SVG files are plain white on transparent background and dont have any effects. Previews are created in gimp using artistic->softglow effect and colorize. Sorry if they are misleading"
Excellent sound effects!
If these are derived from various licenses, this submission must adopt the more restrictive license. Displaying both CC-BY 4.0 and CC0 implies people may use all the sound effects herein under the terms of just CC0 if they so chose, which does not adhere to the samples under CC-BY 4.0. The credits.txt should remain as-is, so that people may elect to use the individual CC0 samples under that license, but if people are going by the overall license, it should be CC-BY 4.0 to avoid bad assumptions.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Nice!
Where are the credits listed?
There is no requirement that profile pictures adhere to submission guidelines; you aren't sharing your profile picture for FOSS distribution.
There are no restrictions beyond "try to keep it SFW" and "do not attempt to impersonate other users".
Revision notes are publicly visible in the "revision" tab, but only to those who are logged in. Notes like this should probably be added to the description rather than comments section.
Thanks for the updated work!
I really like this. A supreme example of "minimalist ≠ dull"
bumped for new content.
Any license terms that apply to the files in the "File(s)" section must be forthright and clear. The terms hidden in the single frame of the preview image are both obfuscated and illegible. If they are the same terms as the license indicated in the "License(s)" section, there is no need to include them at all. If they are not the same as the selected "License(s)", then they are in conflict. Please remove the terms or make them available in plain text.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
bumped for new content.
I think it would be easier to include a flag/checkbox/dropdown menu in the site search that restricted the search to specific collection(s) such as "my downloads" or "my favorites"
Either way, a good idea, so I'll keep that in mind for the next site version.
@DocHHH: what is the nature of your confusion? The previews seem to be a good representation of how the "File(s)" could be used. Was your question not adressed by the author's note?
Pages