$12256 / $11500
So I noticed some of the considerate art submissions by http://opengameart.org/users/downdate of late and I also noticed the Attribution Instructions, such as the one in http://opengameart.org/content/sorry-you-lost-stamp, make the CC-BY 3.0 license seem a little shaky.
This part "You don't need your permission but we want to keep track of use" makes sense and seems like a considerate thing to do, it is the "in case of licensing problems and the like" that follows it that makes me a little uneasy.
Any thoughts out there on this? Does this compete with the CC-BY license? Is it in OGA spirit?
Lastly, should we verify that downdate is authorized to post on behalf of that project since we have to ask them if we can use their art?
Thank you for your time,
- Curtis
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
It also seems like we should have them correct the assumed typo "your permission" to "our permission" or more specifically "the author / owner / etc... permission" because they do actually mean very different things.
@cboyden: the license he agreed to distribute that art is CC-By, OGA forces him to accept that license and if memory serves, CC-By is irrevokable. Having him right to post those graphics is something else and might need checking.
I agree with cemkalyoncu - CC-By is pretty explicit about not adding restrictions. However, I think he meant it as a request/courtesy rather than a binding condition, and just phrased it a bit confusingly.
Some clarification on Downdate's part would be beneficial. I'd suggest maybe adding an "It's not required, but we would appreciate if..", removing the "You may then use it under CC-By 3.0" (since that could be read to imply that you can't use the asset under CC-By until you've met that requirement), and moving the notification request from the Attribution Instructions to the general description.
My project: Bits & Bots
My take on this is that it looks like it's technically fine (assuming that the "your permission" thing is a typo), but he shouldn't have put that stuff in the attribution instructions, since it's not really an attribution related thing. I'm going to leave the content up and try to get ahold of the artist to ask them to move the request into the main description block so as to avoid confusion.