Who made the portions containing the female body? If it wasn't Redshrike, wulax, or Nila, then there is some attribution information missing from this.
There is usually no legal ramifications from using usernames, but it is polite to ask. On the other hand, some usernames may be the person's real name, or the username is trademarked. Case-in-point, "Medicine Storm." However, I would love for you to use my handle as a narrative element in your game. My only request is that "Medicine Storm" never be associated with narrative elements featuring child abuse.
Regarding the spambot necromancer; The first thing I thought of was those monsters "Bots" from Legend Of Zelda: https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Bot Haha! I can just imagine a spam bot being portrayed as a slimy half-witted blob that somehow has nercomantic powers.
On the "Necromancy" note, how does recovery after death work in this game? When the player dies, is there a cost to be resurrected? or is it just an instant free respawn thing? I wonder if bart, being a vampire, is cursed to be (un)dead but is one of the few people capable of resurrecting dead players. He can't come out of the basement or be set free (as his bloodlust would take over) but he is willing to bring you back from beyond the veil of death... for a price! *muahahahahh!* It's your story, of course, so just ignore me.
However, you can't license this under MIT. that is a software license and is not accepted on OGA. It is generally compatible with the licenses we accept, but it must be one of the licenses we accept. Like CC-BY. Would you be willing to remove the "Licensed under MIT" text in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section?
Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue to prevent usage you may not approve of.
The two licenses are compatible with each other. There is no issue with having both. In fact, having both makes the asset easier to find when someone is searching by specific license.
@Commander: mocking or serious, that is a bit close to breaking the "no discussion of religion" rule.
@withthelove:
Wouldn't distributing something as an NFT violate most of the licenses on OGA?
Insofar as repurposing an asset into an NFT counts as relicensing it, yes. Yes it does. Doubly so if the NFT itself does not indicate proper attribution and a link to the original. It could also be fraud given the way most NFTs are presented. Thus this: https://opengameart.org/content/warning-taking-art-from-opengameartorg-t...
However, I don't know of any specific examples of assets being taken from OGA and minted against the author's wishes. As I mentioned elsewhere, some OGA users removed all their art from OGA after a huge NFT scandal, but the NFT scalpers didn't burgle the assets from OGA, as far as I can tell. They were taken from twitter or other sources.
Thanks for the quick edit, VRS1. I was researching the answer to this while you were removing the components.
What I discovered is that it is not quite as black and white as "Unity assets not allowed on OGA". Some Unity Assets were deemed incompatible previously, but they may have been under the non-"free" EULA and it looks like the Unity EULA has since changed. At first it looks like this derivative could be ok because, per the FAQ:
Q: Can I distribute assets from the Asset Store?
A: Only to the extent that assets are embedded or incorporated into a game or digital product ("Licensed Product" for short):
Contains a substantial amount of original creative work developed or licensed from outside the Asset Store.
Has a purpose, features, and function beyond the distribution of assets.
A product is not "incorporated" into the Licensed Product if it is designed to allow your end users to extract or download assets separately from the Licensed Product.
You may use SDK assets to develop the Licensed Product, but your Licensed Product cannot include SDK assets at run-time without the publisher's permission.
Although this asset is not incorporated into a game, can it be considered a digital product or "Licensed Product"? It does contain substantial original creative work, it has a purpose beyond distribution of the original asset, though sharing it here on OGA means its purpose could be distribution of the "Licensed Product" a.k.a. this derivative. It is not designed to allow extraction of the original asset, and it doesn't contain any SDK components.
Unfortunately, in researching this just now, I found the following within the raw EULA:
2.2.1.1 Limitations on License. Without limiting the foregoing, END-USER may not, and has no right to, ...
(b) enable a customer or user of a Licensed Product to sell, transfer, distribute, lease, or lend the Assets for commercial gain or commercialize Assets within a Licensed Product,
Emphasis mine. There may be other stipulations of the EULA that make Unity Assets incompatible with OGA derivatives, so if anyone knows of other things, please mention them as it will simplify this.
Per the above, the only reason this derivative of Unity EULA asstes would be compatible with licenses on OGA is if it can be considered a "Licensed Product". However, if it is a "Licensed Product", it can't be sold, transferred, blah blah blah for commercial gain. which is incompatible with all the OGA licenses.
On the other hand, the following is also in the EULA:
2.7 Some components of Assets (whether developed by Unity or third parties) may also be governed by applicable open source software licenses. In the event of a conflict between the applicable EULA and any such open source licenses, the open source software licenses shall prevail with respect to those components.
It could mean that Unity assets marked "Free", when combined with other assets licensed CC-BY, then the derivative inherits the CC-BY license, as the conflict causes the FOSS license to prevail. However, I do not believe that is what is being said here. I believe this is irrespective of derivative license, and the FOSS license only prevails if that FOSS license is a component of the asset on the Unity Asset Store, not a component of a separate asset being derived with it.
Any thoughts?
Regardless of that, TL;DR: This asset is fine to use. The possibly incompatible components were removed. Great work VRS1! Do the Previews reflect the newly modified version?
"May I suggest that we move forward with getting the updated license descriptions posted to the site"
Trying to do that now, but the issue I'm running into is the suggested changes for that section still add confusion and often do not answer the question being asked. I agree the new language adds some important details, but until it answers more questions than it creates, it has no business in the FAQ section.
The old version says:
"This license requires you to release any modifications you make to the art work in question under the same license."
The new version says
"If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license... The definition of a derivative work is not black and white and there is some ambiguity about how the term applies to using art works in a video game or related project. Creative Commons has attempted to provide some guidance on the issue here ... however they have yet to provide specific guidance for most common video game use scenarios .... One use case is clear and spelled out explicitly by the CC-SA-BY licenses: if you synchronize a moving image to a piece of music or sound effect licensed as CC-BY-SA, then you must distribute the resultant work as CC-BY-SA also. ...so long as you ... are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work. Those working on projects for which this might be an issue (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0 works in their project."
This, IMO, is overly verbose. We already disclaim this FAQ as not being legal advice and recommend reading the full text and/or consulting a lawyer. This extra specificity prompts the questions "under what circumstances would my entire project be required to be released under the same license?" and "what constitutes a derivative work?"
The old language doesn't address these questions, but neither does the new language, so what is it adding? I do beleive we should work toward answering those additional questions, but until we can answer them, there is no point in listing details that only affect a minority of circumstances. The FAQ should be general recommendations, not an enumeration of edge cases.
Given our current understanding, does CC BY-SA require projects to be fully released -SA given the most common set of circumstances for said projects? Unless most projects would be required to be Shared Alike, then saying users must be prepared to do so is not general guidelines, it's niche. Nothing more than "Some projects as a whole may be considered derivatives of the artwork. See full license text" need be added. For GPL art, however, the extra warning may be warranted since the majority of projects could be strangely affected by the license GPL given the typical methods of packaging artwork in game projects.
I will continue to update that section of the FAQ, omitting the parts I mention above. I recognize those parts are important, but the changes so far will be no worse than the current version yet will not add undue confusion while we work out those details.
[Moving topic from "Writers' Forum" to "3D Art"]
Who made the portions containing the female body? If it wasn't Redshrike, wulax, or Nila, then there is some attribution information missing from this.
There is usually no legal ramifications from using usernames, but it is polite to ask. On the other hand, some usernames may be the person's real name, or the username is trademarked. Case-in-point, "Medicine Storm." However, I would love for you to use my handle as a narrative element in your game. My only request is that "Medicine Storm" never be associated with narrative elements featuring child abuse.
Regarding the spambot necromancer; The first thing I thought of was those monsters "Bots" from Legend Of Zelda: https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Bot Haha! I can just imagine a spam bot being portrayed as a slimy half-witted blob that somehow has nercomantic powers.
On the "Necromancy" note, how does recovery after death work in this game? When the player dies, is there a cost to be resurrected? or is it just an instant free respawn thing? I wonder if bart, being a vampire, is cursed to be (un)dead but is one of the few people capable of resurrecting dead players. He can't come out of the basement or be set free (as his bloodlust would take over) but he is willing to bring you back from beyond the veil of death... for a price! *muahahahahh!* It's your story, of course, so just ignore me.
Nice!
However, you can't license this under MIT. that is a software license and is not accepted on OGA. It is generally compatible with the licenses we accept, but it must be one of the licenses we accept. Like CC-BY. Would you be willing to remove the "Licensed under MIT" text in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section?Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue to prevent usage you may not approve of.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
The two licenses are compatible with each other. There is no issue with having both. In fact, having both makes the asset easier to find when someone is searching by specific license.
Ok. looking forward to seeing the updated previews when you have them ready. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for being so fast to adapt.
@Commander: mocking or serious, that is a bit close to breaking the "no discussion of religion" rule.
@withthelove:
Insofar as repurposing an asset into an NFT counts as relicensing it, yes. Yes it does. Doubly so if the NFT itself does not indicate proper attribution and a link to the original. It could also be fraud given the way most NFTs are presented. Thus this: https://opengameart.org/content/warning-taking-art-from-opengameartorg-t...
However, I don't know of any specific examples of assets being taken from OGA and minted against the author's wishes. As I mentioned elsewhere, some OGA users removed all their art from OGA after a huge NFT scandal, but the NFT scalpers didn't burgle the assets from OGA, as far as I can tell. They were taken from twitter or other sources.
Thanks for the quick edit, VRS1. I was researching the answer to this while you were removing the components.
What I discovered is that it is not quite as black and white as "Unity assets not allowed on OGA". Some Unity Assets were deemed incompatible previously, but they may have been under the non-"free" EULA and it looks like the Unity EULA has since changed. At first it looks like this derivative could be ok because, per the FAQ:
Although this asset is not incorporated into a game, can it be considered a digital product or "Licensed Product"? It does contain substantial original creative work, it has a purpose beyond distribution of the original asset, though sharing it here on OGA means its purpose could be distribution of the "Licensed Product" a.k.a. this derivative. It is not designed to allow extraction of the original asset, and it doesn't contain any SDK components.
Unfortunately, in researching this just now, I found the following within the raw EULA:
Emphasis mine. There may be other stipulations of the EULA that make Unity Assets incompatible with OGA derivatives, so if anyone knows of other things, please mention them as it will simplify this.
Per the above, the only reason this derivative of Unity EULA asstes would be compatible with licenses on OGA is if it can be considered a "Licensed Product". However, if it is a "Licensed Product", it can't be sold, transferred, blah blah blah for commercial gain. which is incompatible with all the OGA licenses.
On the other hand, the following is also in the EULA:
It could mean that Unity assets marked "Free", when combined with other assets licensed CC-BY, then the derivative inherits the CC-BY license, as the conflict causes the FOSS license to prevail. However, I do not believe that is what is being said here. I believe this is irrespective of derivative license, and the FOSS license only prevails if that FOSS license is a component of the asset on the Unity Asset Store, not a component of a separate asset being derived with it.
Any thoughts?
Regardless of that, TL;DR: This asset is fine to use. The possibly incompatible components were removed. Great work VRS1! Do the Previews reflect the newly modified version?
Trying to do that now, but the issue I'm running into is the suggested changes for that section still add confusion and often do not answer the question being asked. I agree the new language adds some important details, but until it answers more questions than it creates, it has no business in the FAQ section.
The old version says:
The new version says
This, IMO, is overly verbose. We already disclaim this FAQ as not being legal advice and recommend reading the full text and/or consulting a lawyer. This extra specificity prompts the questions "under what circumstances would my entire project be required to be released under the same license?" and "what constitutes a derivative work?"
The old language doesn't address these questions, but neither does the new language, so what is it adding? I do beleive we should work toward answering those additional questions, but until we can answer them, there is no point in listing details that only affect a minority of circumstances. The FAQ should be general recommendations, not an enumeration of edge cases.
Given our current understanding, does CC BY-SA require projects to be fully released -SA given the most common set of circumstances for said projects? Unless most projects would be required to be Shared Alike, then saying users must be prepared to do so is not general guidelines, it's niche. Nothing more than "Some projects as a whole may be considered derivatives of the artwork. See full license text" need be added. For GPL art, however, the extra warning may be warranted since the majority of projects could be strangely affected by the license GPL given the typical methods of packaging artwork in game projects.
I will continue to update that section of the FAQ, omitting the parts I mention above. I recognize those parts are important, but the changes so far will be no worse than the current version yet will not add undue confusion while we work out those details.
"texture"?
Pages