Yes. CC0 essentially makes the other licenses moot, but having multiple licenses listed (even ones that eclipse the others) makes assets easier to search. Someone searching for just GPL content for their GPL project may never see assets under just the CC0 license, even though CC0 can be adapted to GPL. This way, anyone searching for any one of the licenses will see this asset. The difference is minor, honestly, but there is nothing wrong with including all the licenses.
Would you be willing to consolidate your other submissions into a "low poly" set? It may make more sense to have 9+ objects of the same style in one place as opposed to 9+ separate pages with one object each.
Putting both here implies the entire set can be either CC0 or CC-BY 3.0. That isn't the case. The implication from the new attribution is that the set is CC0 in part and alsoCC-BY in part. It is true that your parts can be CC0 and Buch's parts can be CC-BY, but listing both licenses isn't the way to specify diffrent licenses for subcomponents. Only licenses common to all parts may be listed.
P.S. The attribution blurb can remain as it is. Those users wishing to suss out which parts are CC0 and use those separately may do so, but the submission has to indicate accurate licensing for the submission as a whole.
Ah ok. Looks good. Thanks.
I'm seeing 2 .png tilesets in the .zip as well as the .txt
You're not seeing the other two files? What extraction tool are you using?
Jummit is Ulfander?
Yes. CC0 essentially makes the other licenses moot, but having multiple licenses listed (even ones that eclipse the others) makes assets easier to search. Someone searching for just GPL content for their GPL project may never see assets under just the CC0 license, even though CC0 can be adapted to GPL. This way, anyone searching for any one of the licenses will see this asset. The difference is minor, honestly, but there is nothing wrong with including all the licenses.
@_Hello_: GIMP is able to use .psd files and it is free. https://www.gimp.org/downloads/
Would you be willing to consolidate your other submissions into a "low poly" set? It may make more sense to have 9+ objects of the same style in one place as opposed to 9+ separate pages with one object each.
As sus as he is, he's right. Another banger.
Assets used for any Jetpack related work.
It is. Thank you.
Putting both here implies the entire set can be either CC0 or CC-BY 3.0. That isn't the case. The implication from the new attribution is that the set is CC0 in part and also CC-BY in part.It is true that your parts can be CC0 and Buch's parts can be CC-BY,but listing both licenses isn't the way to specify diffrent licenses for subcomponents. Only licenses common to all parts may be listed.P.S. The attribution blurb can remain as it is. Those users wishing to suss out which parts are CC0 and use those separately may do so,
but the submission has to indicate accurate licensing for the submission as a whole.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Pages