caeles, I missed the part about GPL requiring source form. That is an important part of the GPL too. Thank you for pointing that out.
My issue with GPL on artwork is GPL is designed for something that can be compiled/interpreted and executed. Artwork (aside from complicated cases like 3D models and vector art with embedded scripts) is entirely static or markup content with no parts that can be compiled/interpreted. The significant part of that is it must be executable; artwork is not executable on it's own, it must be rendered by something external. From my perspective this means all artwork are static data. Most of the GPL text doesn't have meaning on artwork except the three main clauses we've covered already.
GPL on artwork causes the following:
Attribution
Prevent DRM
Require source version
All of those things are desirable outcomes for artwork, that's why I included GPL as an option on all my assets listed on OGA. While GPL is a software license it does have some traits that make it useful on graphics. The most notable trait of GPL, that of causing an entire project and all it's software components to be forced under a GPL license, doesn't work with artwork or other static resources. That's the main thing I would point out.
EDIT
For a reference to the GPL and why this is true please read the last large paragraph under heading 1. Source Code, found here (The “Corresponding Source”):
This paragraph explains how externally linked resources (interface definition files/shared libraries/dynamically linked subprograms, i.e. artwork) are not absorbed by the GPL when included in a project coverd by GPL.
[...it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.]
Unless artwork is embedded in the program, such as directly including the binary that describes the artwork into a class definition, then it cannot be considered an essential part of it. I can swap graphics in a generic game engine all day long, none of them are essential for making the engine work.
I love playing games in either style. That being said, having top-down resources is always a plus (personal preference). I'm not an artist but the Dawn Bringer palette seems quite useful and popular, you might be able to make whatever resources you craft compatible with a larger set by using that palette.
In response to your first comment about CC0 and CC-BY-SA: The creative commons licenses don't glom onto everything like GPL, they are specifically written to be self-contained. Having an asset that is CC-BY-SA does not cause anything else to change or gain that license, only that one specific asset and any derivatives will be forced to have that asset.
Lol, you're funny MoikMellah. I do that too. I'll read something and miss a major point, only to address some small bit that's an off-topic thought. Later, I'll go back to re-read the thread and realize I talked about something different or semi off-topic that was already addressed.
I agree that GPL *can* be applied to non-software, it just doesn't serve much functional purpose outside of requiring attribution and stopping DRM.
GNU clarified (very clearly) on their site that graphics, fonts, and geographic data are not considered software, they are static resources that are linked by software. GPL does not apply itself to graphics, font, or geographic data when included as part of a software package that is contained by GPL. GNU also recommends CC-BY-SA for non-software works that aren't attached to a project because GPL isn't suited for non-software. GPL is pretty cut and dry, there's not a lot of room for discussion on that one (anymore).
GPL is an option for artwork because it's a left-over from assets submitted under the LPC. The LPC assets and code were dual-licensed under GPL and CC-BY-SA. Your set theory idea about GPL not having an effect on art is correct. GPL art or music can only trigger attribution, not change the license of source code. GPL code cannot force art assets to become GPL licensed. DRM is not allowed by anything that includes GPL assets or code so still can't be used in the apple store or on steam without permission to waive this clause by the author/creator.
While I'm a fan of FOSS ideas I don't see how cc-by-sa could force the source of a project to be released under the same license. Making a project so closely related to graphics/sound to become a derivative of that asset would be almost as absurt as making a program compiled for a particular OS an extension of that OS; it doesn't make sense, they are separate. A graphic can be used in any medium where graphics can be displayed on a screen. How does a graphic being included in a game make the game reliant on it so heavily that it becomes a derivative work of that graphic? Further still, if we did assume somehow magically this were true how could anyone make a game (or anything else for that matter) that used cc-by-sa assets along side anything else? Even further still, how would cc-by-sa make sense for code vs. creative content since it's a creative content license, not a code license?
I forgot, here's a direct link to the DB32 palette if you so desire it:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16247
caeles, I missed the part about GPL requiring source form. That is an important part of the GPL too. Thank you for pointing that out.
My issue with GPL on artwork is GPL is designed for something that can be compiled/interpreted and executed. Artwork (aside from complicated cases like 3D models and vector art with embedded scripts) is entirely static or markup content with no parts that can be compiled/interpreted. The significant part of that is it must be executable; artwork is not executable on it's own, it must be rendered by something external. From my perspective this means all artwork are static data. Most of the GPL text doesn't have meaning on artwork except the three main clauses we've covered already.
GPL on artwork causes the following:
All of those things are desirable outcomes for artwork, that's why I included GPL as an option on all my assets listed on OGA. While GPL is a software license it does have some traits that make it useful on graphics. The most notable trait of GPL, that of causing an entire project and all it's software components to be forced under a GPL license, doesn't work with artwork or other static resources. That's the main thing I would point out.
EDIT
For a reference to the GPL and why this is true please read the last large paragraph under heading 1. Source Code, found here (The “Corresponding Source”):
https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
This paragraph explains how externally linked resources (interface definition files/shared libraries/dynamically linked subprograms, i.e. artwork) are not absorbed by the GPL when included in a project coverd by GPL.
[...it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.]
Unless artwork is embedded in the program, such as directly including the binary that describes the artwork into a class definition, then it cannot be considered an essential part of it. I can swap graphics in a generic game engine all day long, none of them are essential for making the engine work.
I love playing games in either style. That being said, having top-down resources is always a plus (personal preference). I'm not an artist but the Dawn Bringer palette seems quite useful and popular, you might be able to make whatever resources you craft compatible with a larger set by using that palette.
http://www.pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12795
You can find the original post by Clint Bellenger about this palette here:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/texture-examples-using-dawnbringers-16...
Here is a discussion that includes some 32 color palette talk:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/lpc-assets-dawnbringer32-palette
And finally, here is a discussion about color palettes that includes some talk about the same:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/colors-and-palettes
In response to your first comment about CC0 and CC-BY-SA: The creative commons licenses don't glom onto everything like GPL, they are specifically written to be self-contained. Having an asset that is CC-BY-SA does not cause anything else to change or gain that license, only that one specific asset and any derivatives will be forced to have that asset.
Sorry Blender, hard habit to break. Here are some links to the LPC contest and the content submitted:
Lol, you're funny MoikMellah. I do that too. I'll read something and miss a major point, only to address some small bit that's an off-topic thought. Later, I'll go back to re-read the thread and realize I talked about something different or semi off-topic that was already addressed.
I agree that GPL *can* be applied to non-software, it just doesn't serve much functional purpose outside of requiring attribution and stopping DRM.
Hey,
Here's a discussion on reddit about this very topic:
http://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/18xl4x/how_do_you_specify_which_th...
Here's the site that describes the metadata reddit will respect (along with other sites like Facebook, WordPress, and several others):
http://ogp.me/
GNU clarified (very clearly) on their site that graphics, fonts, and geographic data are not considered software, they are static resources that are linked by software. GPL does not apply itself to graphics, font, or geographic data when included as part of a software package that is contained by GPL. GNU also recommends CC-BY-SA for non-software works that aren't attached to a project because GPL isn't suited for non-software. GPL is pretty cut and dry, there's not a lot of room for discussion on that one (anymore).
GPL is an option for artwork because it's a left-over from assets submitted under the LPC. The LPC assets and code were dual-licensed under GPL and CC-BY-SA. Your set theory idea about GPL not having an effect on art is correct. GPL art or music can only trigger attribution, not change the license of source code. GPL code cannot force art assets to become GPL licensed. DRM is not allowed by anything that includes GPL assets or code so still can't be used in the apple store or on steam without permission to waive this clause by the author/creator.
While I'm a fan of FOSS ideas I don't see how cc-by-sa could force the source of a project to be released under the same license. Making a project so closely related to graphics/sound to become a derivative of that asset would be almost as absurt as making a program compiled for a particular OS an extension of that OS; it doesn't make sense, they are separate. A graphic can be used in any medium where graphics can be displayed on a screen. How does a graphic being included in a game make the game reliant on it so heavily that it becomes a derivative work of that graphic? Further still, if we did assume somehow magically this were true how could anyone make a game (or anything else for that matter) that used cc-by-sa assets along side anything else? Even further still, how would cc-by-sa make sense for code vs. creative content since it's a creative content license, not a code license?
Pages