@MedicineStorm: I guess the threads really don't offer answers; they demonstrate that there is a lot of confusion regarding licensing. They leave a lot to interpretation and are pretty daunting. Most of the thread is posts about how people interpret the license.
@MedicineStorm. This is far from a cut and dried issue, as evident in the number of threads and the length of those threads. Unfortunately, the wording that makes those licenses legal also makes them difficult for the average user to fully grasp. Licenses are also vague to cover the largest audience possible. This leaves a lot to interpretation, and unless you're also a lawyer this can be daunting.
Consistent art would be the biggest, for me personally. The LPC collection is a good example. You can, for the most part, mix and match resources. Also see Buch's stuff, a lot of his tiles would mix and match easily.
Actually, it isn't just Apple. Nintendo also has a limitation against open sourced anything. I'm assuming Microsoft and Sony probably do too.
All of that makes sense, because if you use GPL software you could be forced to release your sources, which could contain Nintendo trade secrets.
I fully agree on DRM, it punishes the ones that purchase the products. But, the DRM clause seems more political than 'fighting for freedom'. As I stated above, I could simply convert the resources to my own game format, and I've effectively blocked you from getting that spritesheet. Conversely, if you've purchased the ipa, and backed it up with iTunes, you can easily open the file and extract the contents. Do a google seach for 'extract files for an ipa'. A Youtube video will show how easy it is.
DRM, in this case, doesn't protect the contents, it protects the distribution of the entire package.
The whole DRM clause doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
If the idea was to be able to replace assets, similar to LGPL and libraries, then the license needs to go further and state that the resource must be used in the format supplied (or something similar). DRM is not the only way to prevent someone from getting at the asset. Isn't a protected Unity package a form of DRM?
To comply with GPL, I don't have to allow the source to be extracted from my program, I just have to make it available to anyone interested. And, technically I could release a GPL'd program with DRM.
If the interest is to prevent someone from making money from your work, there's another license for that.
I'm not sure what the purpose of the clause is.
It would be nice, at the author's discretion, to be able to pay to waive the DRM clause. If I decide that iOS users can't live without my game, I have a way of using the resource.
Sometimes the restrictions of CC licenses outweigh the advantage of being free. It's usually easier to pay for an asset and not be restricted (or at least not as restricted).
I do understand that an artist wants to be credited for their work. Most people are happy to ensure people are credited for resources they use. Maybe we need a CC_½_BY license that ensures the artist is credited, but doesn't restrict usage of the resource. The OGA licenses are a good example of this, but they are not universal and every artist isn't necessarily interested in using them. If a resource is uploaded to another site, there's a discrepancy in the licenses.
From the screenshots, the head looks a little big for the body.
It looks like there's a seam in the hair in the last picture, That would be noticeable, in a third person game. But the game doesn't seem to be a third person game, so it may not matter.
@MedicineStorm: I guess the threads really don't offer answers; they demonstrate that there is a lot of confusion regarding licensing. They leave a lot to interpretation and are pretty daunting. Most of the thread is posts about how people interpret the license.
@MedicineStorm. This is far from a cut and dried issue, as evident in the number of threads and the length of those threads. Unfortunately, the wording that makes those licenses legal also makes them difficult for the average user to fully grasp. Licenses are also vague to cover the largest audience possible. This leaves a lot to interpretation, and unless you're also a lawyer this can be daunting.
Consistent art would be the biggest, for me personally. The LPC collection is a good example. You can, for the most part, mix and match resources. Also see Buch's stuff, a lot of his tiles would mix and match easily.
Actually, it isn't just Apple. Nintendo also has a limitation against open sourced anything. I'm assuming Microsoft and Sony probably do too.
All of that makes sense, because if you use GPL software you could be forced to release your sources, which could contain Nintendo trade secrets.
I fully agree on DRM, it punishes the ones that purchase the products. But, the DRM clause seems more political than 'fighting for freedom'. As I stated above, I could simply convert the resources to my own game format, and I've effectively blocked you from getting that spritesheet. Conversely, if you've purchased the ipa, and backed it up with iTunes, you can easily open the file and extract the contents. Do a google seach for 'extract files for an ipa'. A Youtube video will show how easy it is.
DRM, in this case, doesn't protect the contents, it protects the distribution of the entire package.
The whole DRM clause doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
If the idea was to be able to replace assets, similar to LGPL and libraries, then the license needs to go further and state that the resource must be used in the format supplied (or something similar). DRM is not the only way to prevent someone from getting at the asset. Isn't a protected Unity package a form of DRM?
To comply with GPL, I don't have to allow the source to be extracted from my program, I just have to make it available to anyone interested. And, technically I could release a GPL'd program with DRM.
If the interest is to prevent someone from making money from your work, there's another license for that.
I'm not sure what the purpose of the clause is.
It would be nice, at the author's discretion, to be able to pay to waive the DRM clause. If I decide that iOS users can't live without my game, I have a way of using the resource.
Sometimes the restrictions of CC licenses outweigh the advantage of being free. It's usually easier to pay for an asset and not be restricted (or at least not as restricted).
I do understand that an artist wants to be credited for their work. Most people are happy to ensure people are credited for resources they use. Maybe we need a CC_½_BY license that ensures the artist is credited, but doesn't restrict usage of the resource. The OGA licenses are a good example of this, but they are not universal and every artist isn't necessarily interested in using them. If a resource is uploaded to another site, there's a discrepancy in the licenses.
That is freakin' awesome!
Incredible. I really like the SwingingLevel one. Definitely has the Nintendo feel to it.
The backgrounds are incredible. They would provide a nice atmosphere for a game.
The texturing looks really good.
The only things I see are:
From the screenshots, the head looks a little big for the body.
It looks like there's a seam in the hair in the last picture, That would be noticeable, in a third person game. But the game doesn't seem to be a third person game, so it may not matter.
I was reading, on reddit, that the alpha version supports HD index painting:
http://www.danfessler.com/blog/hd-index-painting-in-photoshop
Here's the reddit post, which has a link to a video describing how it works wiithin Krita:
http://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/28icn5/you_may_remember_the_blo...
Pages