Do you have a specific style in mind? Top-down orthogonal, isometric, side scroll? Maybe some of these examples are less than perfect but they get the idea across:
I don't think a 2-day-old thread can be resurrected. I'm pretty sure it needs to be dead longer. If you don't have a clear idea what you're looking for there are tons of other sprites here on OGA. Do you have any more specific traits in a sprite you'd like to use?
Okay then how about something a little closer to home. How can FLARE be under the GPL while the content used to make games for it be under a different license without violating either's license?
mdwh, fair assessment. Still, how can the Quake game engine be released under GPL and the content remain private? That begs me to ask how GPL can force art or other interface content to be covered by the same license, even if distributed together, when a major game company like Id Software has done exactly that. Id Software distributes their game engine as GPL and their content as private license and distributes them together. Obviously this is a real-life example that begs me to ask how GPL affects interface content in any software, not just games.
I try to make sure everyone is happy so I end up asking everyone for permission even if they have a clear license. I guess I fall into the first category you outlined.
It might seem like I'm splitting hairs by saying graphics can't force the GPL onto software but let me demonstrate with simple thought experiments.
Example #1:
Let's assume I have a GPL image on a server that someone can view with their Internet brower. The browser must download that image and render it from a local cache using system libraries. Since that browser must open and render the image does it now become an integral part of the browser and cause the browser to rely on it to function? No, the image cannot force the browser to rely on that image to function, thus it cannot force that browser to take on the GPL.
Example #2:
Let's assume I have a GPL image on my local drive that I want to view with a non-GPL image viewer. By opening the image with this viewer software does it now rely on the image to function? No, the viewer is a separate program that is dynamically linking to the image file to read static content. The image cannot force the viewer to fall under the GPL.
Example #3:
Let's assume I have a generic program that reads and interprets image data from external files (let's call it a game) and displays them on screen according to pre-defined program logic. Now let's say I open that program and it reads data from a GPL image. Does that program now rely on that image to function? No, I can replace the image file with a new file at any time, it is not an integral part of the program. That GPL image cannot force software to fall under the GPL.
Is this clear enough or should I continue to beat the dead horse?
EDIT
Just in case we're not completely clear let's have more examples.
Example #4:
I have a GPL image on my local disk. I embed this image in an MS Word document. Does the document become GPL as a result of the image? Does MS Word now become GPL because of the image in the document? MS Word does not rely on the document to function, so it cannot be GPL. The document is not GPL since it can contain other elements besides the image. Only the image is GPL.
Example #5:
I have a GPL image stored in an archive file. Does the program that reads the archive become GPL because of the image? No, the program that reads the archive does not rely on the archive to function. The archive file doesn't become GPL either because it can contain more than the image. Only the image file is GPL.
Example #6:
I have a website with a GPL icon. Someone bookmarks my website and the icon is stored by the browser and gets displayed in their favorites. Now their browser displays this image every time the favorites list is displayed. Does the browser now rely on this icon to function and fall under GPL? Hell no. The browser is driven by program logic that interprets display data given to it by the user, it does not rely on the icon stored separately from the browser to function. The GPL icon cannot force the browser to take on the GPL.
These examples apply equally well to the argument that CC-BY-SA assets somehow force an entire project to fall under CC-BY-SA. Program logic and display logic have been legally separated for decades for exactly this reason. It hasn't changed since GNU and CC started making licenses.
This is only an issue now because people want to pretend games don't fall under the same traditional model of software development that operating systems and most end-user programs use.
How could Microsoft make AutoCollage when it behaves similarly to a game? It relies on more than 2 external image files to produce a unique display that contains both images at the same time, regardless of the license on either file. The program logic is independent of the image files.
How can the Quake game engine be released under the GPL but the content used in their game be under a different license? Simple, GPL doesn't glom onto graphics the same way it gloms onto software components! If it did, the Internet would be the biggest breading ground of lawsuits ever conceivable by mankind since Internet browsers display images.
No worries lamjot. Just favorite if you like it ;)
Do you have a specific style in mind? Top-down orthogonal, isometric, side scroll? Maybe some of these examples are less than perfect but they get the idea across:
Top-Down Orthogonal view, low pixel count:
http://opengameart.org/content/sara-16x18
Top-Down, medium pixel count:
http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-sara
Isometric, low-poly:
http://opengameart.org/content/tmim-heroine-bleeds-game-art
Side scroll, low pixel count:
http://opengameart.org/content/princess-yasuko-super-miyamoto-land
Side scroll, medium pixel count:
http://opengameart.org/content/kit-the-firefox-mascot
I don't think a 2-day-old thread can be resurrected. I'm pretty sure it needs to be dead longer. If you don't have a clear idea what you're looking for there are tons of other sprites here on OGA. Do you have any more specific traits in a sprite you'd like to use?
Hah, you used the 16x18 Sara I had Redshrikes make. Glad it was useful to you! Here's a link to the spritesheet in case anyone wants it:
http://opengameart.org/content/sara-16x18
If I could favorite this or give it +1 I would. Thank you for the entertainment capbros!
Okay then how about something a little closer to home. How can FLARE be under the GPL while the content used to make games for it be under a different license without violating either's license?
By the way, if you want a more modern example (one that involves a derivative of a GPL engine) here's another dicotemy to consider:
All the Half-Life game series uses a modified version of the Quake engine (GPL), yet all Half-Life content is held under a closed-source license.
Explain to me how GPL software can change content licensing? or how content can force software to change it's license?
mdwh, fair assessment. Still, how can the Quake game engine be released under GPL and the content remain private? That begs me to ask how GPL can force art or other interface content to be covered by the same license, even if distributed together, when a major game company like Id Software has done exactly that. Id Software distributes their game engine as GPL and their content as private license and distributes them together. Obviously this is a real-life example that begs me to ask how GPL affects interface content in any software, not just games.
I try to make sure everyone is happy so I end up asking everyone for permission even if they have a clear license. I guess I fall into the first category you outlined.
It might seem like I'm splitting hairs by saying graphics can't force the GPL onto software but let me demonstrate with simple thought experiments.
Example #1:
Let's assume I have a GPL image on a server that someone can view with their Internet brower. The browser must download that image and render it from a local cache using system libraries. Since that browser must open and render the image does it now become an integral part of the browser and cause the browser to rely on it to function? No, the image cannot force the browser to rely on that image to function, thus it cannot force that browser to take on the GPL.
Example #2:
Let's assume I have a GPL image on my local drive that I want to view with a non-GPL image viewer. By opening the image with this viewer software does it now rely on the image to function? No, the viewer is a separate program that is dynamically linking to the image file to read static content. The image cannot force the viewer to fall under the GPL.
Example #3:
Let's assume I have a generic program that reads and interprets image data from external files (let's call it a game) and displays them on screen according to pre-defined program logic. Now let's say I open that program and it reads data from a GPL image. Does that program now rely on that image to function? No, I can replace the image file with a new file at any time, it is not an integral part of the program. That GPL image cannot force software to fall under the GPL.
Is this clear enough or should I continue to beat the dead horse?
EDIT
Just in case we're not completely clear let's have more examples.
Example #4:
I have a GPL image on my local disk. I embed this image in an MS Word document. Does the document become GPL as a result of the image? Does MS Word now become GPL because of the image in the document? MS Word does not rely on the document to function, so it cannot be GPL. The document is not GPL since it can contain other elements besides the image. Only the image is GPL.
Example #5:
I have a GPL image stored in an archive file. Does the program that reads the archive become GPL because of the image? No, the program that reads the archive does not rely on the archive to function. The archive file doesn't become GPL either because it can contain more than the image. Only the image file is GPL.
Example #6:
I have a website with a GPL icon. Someone bookmarks my website and the icon is stored by the browser and gets displayed in their favorites. Now their browser displays this image every time the favorites list is displayed. Does the browser now rely on this icon to function and fall under GPL? Hell no. The browser is driven by program logic that interprets display data given to it by the user, it does not rely on the icon stored separately from the browser to function. The GPL icon cannot force the browser to take on the GPL.
These examples apply equally well to the argument that CC-BY-SA assets somehow force an entire project to fall under CC-BY-SA. Program logic and display logic have been legally separated for decades for exactly this reason. It hasn't changed since GNU and CC started making licenses.
This is only an issue now because people want to pretend games don't fall under the same traditional model of software development that operating systems and most end-user programs use.
How could Microsoft make AutoCollage when it behaves similarly to a game? It relies on more than 2 external image files to produce a unique display that contains both images at the same time, regardless of the license on either file. The program logic is independent of the image files.
How can the Quake game engine be released under the GPL but the content used in their game be under a different license? Simple, GPL doesn't glom onto graphics the same way it gloms onto software components! If it did, the Internet would be the biggest breading ground of lawsuits ever conceivable by mankind since Internet browsers display images.
Pages