Well, there is a reason why some of us use CC-BY-SA, we want something back to the community. If apple is a dead end, it's apple that need to change, not us. Reconsider if iOS is something you really want to support.

Where did you read that CC-by-SA artwork forces you to release your code under an license ment for artwork? IMHO that is FUD but IANAL (heh try getting all those appreviations :p ).

Besides, you can dual license your code under another open-source license also to make sure no-one has a reason to complain.

@cjc83486: The (relatively) easy solution is to release your game both under the GPL (perhaps the source on github) and the Apple license (on the iOS store). So long as the game is also available as GPL, no one can complain. That is if you are comfortable giving away your game. :)

If not, I'm afraid you'll just have to recognize that some of the contributors may not have wanted their art to be used to sell a commercial game without that game also being available under a license such as GPL.

I would prefer my contributions to LPC to be CC-By, so you have my permission.

Forgive my ignorance, but can't you download and install iOS applications from sources other than Apple's? I mean like android; it has fdroid repository of open source applications.

First off, some disclaimers: I am not a lawyer. All below is just my understanding as a layman. I don't know the CC licenses in detail. I was not a mayor contributor to the LPC art phase.

Already in the original submission, I used a third license (http://www.weyer-zuhause.de/mark/software/oinm_license_0) whereever that was possible. In a nutshell, the license requires distribution of source, is copyleft, but tries hard to contaminate as little other stuff as possible.
But I was able to do that only to precious few parts of my submission, because most is somehow based on the LPC base assets. (Using the recommended shadow colour suffices to be a derived work.)

I am unlikely to relicense under more permissive terms.

@Sharm: Was that a CC-By grant to everybody (if so, which version?), or just a permission to cjc83486?
And do you by chance happen to be the sole originator of that shadow colour?

Back @cjc83486: I don't quite understand your last post.
- "if the code is GPL on github it is still worthless to anyone for the same reason I cant use your images". I don't see that at all. Even if, out of the box, the code only runs on some proprietary system, it could still be adapted to anything else.
- "since Sharm created most of the base tilesets, any derivatives (of just her artwork) should be ok to give myself permission to use." I find that a bit ambiguous. So let me clarify, just in case: You can distribute her unmodified work only under the same license. You can distribute YOUR modifications of her work more freely. You do not have permission to distribute anyone else's (edit: previously published) modifications of her work except under the GPL or CC-by-SA grant already given.
- "This doesnt, however allow you to release your dervatives to the public as CC-by." Are you refering to our derivatives of Sharm's work? Then, depending on her answer to my above question, this may be correct or not. Or are you refering to our derivatives of your derivatives? If you plan to restrict that, I have even less incentive to relicense my stuff.

@vk Yes, but not easily.  

The most common workaround requires jailbreaking your phone, which is the same as rooting your Android device, and which Apple makes very difficult.  In the US, this was legal for a couple of years thanks to the Library of Congress creating an exemption within the DMCA, but IIRC, they reversed that decision in January.  Other countries may be more or less forward-thinking in regards to copyright.  Edit:  Unlocking your phone to work on a different carrier is illegal, but jailbreaking is still legal, in the US:  http://www.cultofmac.com/213144/unlocking-a-new-iphone-is-now-illegal-but-jailbreaking-is-still-safe-what-it-all-means-for-you/

Alternately, you could pay for a developer account with Apple, so that you can build and install your own apps to your devices, but that costs money, I believe.

VLC had a huge spat with Apple regarding the incompatibility with the GPL, which resulted in VLC being pulled from the Apple app store.  It is still in the Cydia app store, I believe, which has much more liberal terms, but exists outside of the Apple-blessed ecosystem.

The Free Software Foundation wrote an article on the incompatibility of the GPL and Apple's App Store: http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

@caeles: "(Using the recommended shadow colour suffices to be a derived work.)"

No, it definitely doesn't.  Colors are not subject to copyright.

@C.Nilsson: as an artist, I'm mostly interested in allowing my art to be useful to people.  The more useful it is, in my view, the more likely people are to want to use and contribute to it.  CC-By-SA is kinda a mess for game development; just look at the billion IRC discussions/arguments we've had about what it really means in terms of source release (or various interpretations in this thread).  I'd really prefer for people not to be in the position of not being sure of what they can and can't do.  CC-By has some issues, but they seem to have much easier workarounds.

Anyway, I am ready to release my contributions (the character base and original animations, plus my other entries wherever possible) under CC-By, if I can be sure it won't bother the organizers of the contest (the people who commissioned it in the first place).  It may take a while, though I don't think it will be a problem; I just want to be sure first.  It should help, though the really awesome stuff (add-ons, extra animations, etc) were all entrant-made and dual-licensing of that stuff is of course entirely up to them.

It's not true that CC BY-SA requires source to be released (see below). However, it is the case that the CC BY-SA art itself must be relicensed under the same terms, so the issue of "All apple games on the app store must be released under the Apple liscense" may still be true.

Also see some discussion at https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/9846/iosmac-app-store-and-cc-by... .

I agree with C.Nilsson's reply. Yes, licence incompatibility can be a shame, but I'd argue that things like the locking down of computing devices is certainly in the spirit of what Free copyleft licences were intended to deter (or at least, not support). Still, you are of course free to ask the copyright holders what they think, they may be okay with more liberal licences.

@Gaurav: "The (relatively) easy solution is to release your game both under the GPL (perhaps the source on github) and the Apple license (on the iOS store). So long as the game is also available as GPL, no one can complain."

It may be true that no one complains, but I'm not sure that fixes the issue. The problem isn't availability of source code, it's relicensing under a different term, which would apply even if the files are available elsewhere. (I mean, I can't relicense CC BY-SA art under a proprietary licence - I don't think it's allowed just because I could say "But you can still download the files from Open Game Art"?)

@cjc83486: "This license requires you to release the source your entire project under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL. If you're trying to sell a game, this is probably something you want to avoid, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well."

This FAQ is incorrect imo. There is nothing in the CC BY-SA licence text ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ) that says "or similar" includes the GPL. In fact, the text refers to "Creative Commons Compatible License", defined at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses , which currently says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"!

I think it is a problem of CC BY-SA that the human-readable summary refers to "similar" licences (and indeed, share "alike" is part of the name), yet in fact, there are no similar licences, you can only relicence under CC BY-SA itself.

Also I think the OGA FAQ needs to be updated, unless a reliable reference can be found supporting it?

"Since this is the sites policy I must assume it was also the artist's intent."

Though if someone releases something under a licence, the terms of that licence applies - if the author thought it meant something else, it's their own fault.

If you have something that said "Licenced under the CC BY-SA. Games using it must be released under the GPL", one could argue it was some kind of adapation of the licence - but this isn't the case here. I don't think one could argue that files released under CC BY-SA on this site, are bound by the definition in the FAQ just because it's on the same site. (Indeed, that would be a whole can of worms in itself, as anyone uploading someone else's CC BY-SA work to OGA would be in violation for relicensing...)

Though as I say, the issue of relicensing CC BY-SA not being allowed on Apple's application site may still apply.

"if a game used all CC-by-SA art, is it really a seperate thing or isn't it an adaptation of the work?"

But if this the case, then it wouldn't be sufficient to release the game binary/code as GPL (since that isn't a "similar" licence), you'd have to release the game as CC BY-SA. Which is why I hope that interpretation isn't true, as it basically makes CC BY-SA useless for game art (well, I suppose one could get round it by dual-licensing the game binary as CC BY-SA).

As for the debate about which licence to use, I think this comes back to the classic GPL vs BSD debate: whether to preserve freedom for users, or whether to maximise freedom for developers. The paradox is you can't do both, which is why we end up with these two philosophies to Free software/content.

@C.Nilsson: "I don't see CC-BY-SA as a mess for game development if the game is open source. If it's not, then I don't want my by-sa art in it"

Unfortunately, the CC BY-SA licence doesn't say that. It's unclear there is a licence that says that - possibly the GPL, but using the GPL for art is a bit vague as to how it applies, again.

 ETA: I also like the tactic taken by the FSF (re: the linked news item) - that they didn't ask them to take it down, they asked for the terms to be changed. Of course Apple were unlikely to change just from one request, but it means FSF can't be made to look the bad guys :) 

@mdwh: I too am not a lawyer. I hope your interpretation of the license is correct. However, vague words such as "adaptation" in the license aren't helpful. It would seem to indicate a game where you can take a screenshot that is clearly a derivative work sounds like an "adaptation" to me. If the license intended to exclude source code or applications, it should have clearly said so. Anyway, I was going by what was said in the opengameart FAQ.

Anyhow, Mozilla uses CC-BY-SA artwork in a MPL-GPL-LGPL tri-license game (BrowserQuest) distributed online, and that's what I'm doing, so I figure I must be on firm ground with my HTML5 RPG, even if the MPL or LGPL are nothing like the GPL or CC-BY-SA.

@mdwh:

'This FAQ is incorrect imo. There is nothing in the CC BY-SA licence text ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ) that says "or similar" includes the GPL. In fact, the text refers to "Creative Commons Compatible License", defined at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses , which currently says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"!'

Agreed that the FAQ is incorrect in regards to CC-By-SA art affecting the code license - it doesn't.  Here is an article by cwebber (formerly of Creative Commons, and one of the principal organizers of the LPC) explaining in detail the separation of the data layer (art, sound, etc.) from the software layer (code/executables) where licensing is concerned.  Also, see this discussion on Freegamer by BartK (who wrote the FAQ originally) expressing the same view on code/data separation.

It can even be argued that CC-by-SA doesn't effect other artwork that is not actually compiled with a CC-by-SA artwork in a single file. In that sense it is more like the LGPL.

However what I didn't think about in my original comment was the issue of relicensing artwork for the apple appstore, which is clearly not possible with the CC-by-SA. But I guess that is part of the reason why it exist (screw Apple, long live Microsoft... err or something like that :p )

Just to avoid a couple bits of confusion:

• Jailbreaking your telephone is still completely legal in the United States.  What is illegal is unlocking your phone, which has to do with being able to change carriers.
• Both CC-BY-SA and CC-BY have an anti-DRM clause which (as I understand it) prevents those works from being released on the apple app store.  I personally take issue with this provision in CC-BY, since it's kind of a gotcha clause in that case.  They either need to remove it or add a note to the license deed to clarify that it's there.
• The people who made the base assets have agreed in the past to allow those assets to be used in iOS games, although at the moment people will need to get individual permission from the artists on a per-game basis.  We're working on getting blanket permission from all of them.
• It is completely up to the individual entrants whether they want to make their work CC-BY (and additionally allow it to be used with DRM) or not.  I personally find Apple's behavior in this regard absolutely obnoxious, so I completely support anyone who doesn't want their art used in apps on the app store.  This is, to reiterate, a problem with Apple, not the artists or the licenses, and, while I am personally fine with my own CC-BY art being used in a DRMed game, it's not my place to speak for others on this matter.

At any rate, this isn't about being vindictive ("screw Apple").  Apple has a lot of organizational inertia, and they obviously care very little about Free Software or the Creative Commons.  They're not going to change just because people have asked them to (they've been asked, they declined).  The only way they're going to change is if they get a significant volume of complaints from their customers.  If you haven't complained to Apple about these practices and how they affect your game development already, I would strongly suggest that you do so.  It's not fair just to complain to the artists.

Thanks for your input Bart.  So, to clarify then, yes, I give permission to use my base asset contributions (that is, the male and female bases, and the original set of poses made by me including walking, slashing, falling, spell-casting) under CC-By.  This will be nice and formalized on the site later, but go ahead.

Furthermore, you (cjc83486) may ignore the anti-DRM clause.  Not because I like or support DRM as a thing (who would?  it's awful.) but because I appreciate the current practical problems with distribution of your work.  Also definitely not because I like or support Apple (and I'll admit, there is a vindictive component to that in my case).

I would like to clarify that I don't have any problem with copyleft as a concept; my only problem is -by-SA in particular because of the questions involved.  It is my hope that wider use of FOSS assets will lead to wider involvement with and expansion of FOSS assets independent of license requirements.  And, possibly, that there will be a better copyleft art license (or licenses, hopefully), available at some point.

I also am giving blanket permission for my LPC assets to be used under CC-By ignoring the anti-DRM clause.  I wish I had more to add to the discussion but I have to admit it's too much legalese for me.

me: "(Using the recommended shadow colour suffices to be a derived work.)"

redshrike: "No, it definitely doesn't. Colors are not subject to copyright."

I am not fully convinced.

On one end of the scale we have trivial colours like #ff0000. I agree that copyright is unlikely to attach to these. Partly because they express a technical necessity rather than an artistic idea.

On the other end we have 2D art, which consists of colours assigned to 2D positions. I believe that the copyrightability of such art encompasses the choice of colours.

The questions is, where the threshold of copyrightability lies. And the answer is likely to be jurisdiction-dependent. I agree that the shadow colour just by itself is probably rather low on the scale.

As a rule of thumb, I expect colour ramps (as found somewhere in the LPC base assets) to be copyrightable, simply because it is difficult for me as a non-artists to create good ones. Or, more generally, a set of colours that are designed to work well with each other.

Of course that wouldn't make every 2D art which happens to contain some colours of the ramp a derived work of the ramp. But the case where I deliberately used the shadow colour specified for the LPC, in 2D art for the LPC, very much feels like a derived work.

"As a rule of thumb, I expect colour ramps (as found somewhere in the LPC base assets) to be copyrightable, simply because it is difficult for me as a non-artists to create good ones."

My understanding is that being difficult to create is not sufficient to be copyrightable, but there must be a creative element. I guess one could argue there can be a creative element to a colour palette, though it's not really clear to me...

I'm the one who picked the shadow color and I don't care what people do with it.  If that's all you use I don't even care if I get credit.  If it were something like Coca-Cola Red that's tied up with my brand identity and has marketing money tied in to get just the right emotional response, then sure, I'd want my colors to be protected under copyright, but for something like this where I just played with sliders and percentages until it didn't look awful, it's not an issue.

HOWEVER, the colors might be a part of LPC's brand identy, so I'll leave it up to Bart if those colors should only be used for LPC artworks.

Oh, fun. :)

I don't really want this ball in my court, since it's not my art.  If it were up to me (legally it isn't), I would not in any circumstance ever go after anyone just for using the same color palette that I used in a work.  From my limited understanding of copyright law, I do not believe that simply using the same palette as someone else infringes on copyright, regardless of license, and I haven't seen any credible evidence to the contrary.  We really could use an opinion on this from someone who is versed in copyright law.

A color can in some cases be trademarked as part of branding, but colors (and, I believe, even full palettes) are completely outside the realm of copyright.

If we're talking about a single shadow colour (not even using the palette), then that does seem uncopyrightable in my opinion - otherwise I could just release a colour map that copyrights every colour in a 24-bit palette :)

For an artist who makes use of a palette, there's perhaps some argument it's a derivative work. Though they'd have to admit it, or show some evidence of this - again, I can't just put up a colour palette and claim ownership of those colours, if people use them independently.

Brand identity would be to do with trademark law. I think colours could be trademarked, though this is more to do with commercial use (And who knows - it wouldn't surprise me if in the US you could get a design patent for something like a colour...) But I don't see how doing any of this would be anything in the interest of being Free or Open Source.

I suppose I'm going to have to put out some sort of official OGA position on this, which, not being a lawyer, I really hate to do.  We have to take copyright law very seriously, because people need to be able to use the media here without fear of legal repercussions.  So, to start off with, I'm going to say that officially OGA will not worry about copyrights on color palettes.

My reasoning is as follows:

• Every remotely reliable source I've looked at says that you can't copyright a color palette.
• Theoretically, it's possible for anyone to sue anyone else for copyright infringement for anything.  If Disney wanted to, they could take Redshrike to court and claim that Xeon is infringing on Mickey Mouse.  The case would immediately be thrown out.
• The likelihood of anyone suing over a color palette is extremely low.  The likelihood of anyone winning such a case is even lower.

In summary, there's always some vanishingly small but nonzero probability that someone might sue you over any content that you use.  At some point you need to draw the line.

One other note:  Pantone has been known for posturing about copyrighting their color collection, but copyright law explicitly excludes databases and compilations.  While it would seem to me that they don't have a leg to stand on, they do have a huge pile of money to stand on and have issued cease & desist letters for use of their color database.  It's not worth the hassle and risk to fight them over it, so we will treat the Pantone palette as if they have a valid copyright, even though it's extremely doubtful that they do.

Thanks for taking the issue seriously.

To dissolve all doubts, would it be possible for you to license the LPC style guide permissively, say under CC0? That would take care of all concerns (not just about colours) of the kind "I made this art so it matches the LPC style, now is it a derived work?".

That's a good question.  I'll ask and get back to you.

Any progress on this issue?

Feng Zhu (star wars guy) touched on the subject of the dangers of copyright infringement and said briefly that even ripping colors from another piece of artwork is frowned upon in the industry. he didnt say legal or not just that it was frowned upon. basically saying if you rip a color palette it raises questions  to your employer what else you might have taken or copied.

Assuming your using LPC artwork in a new game;

the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license txt leads me to believe, that you are free to publicly display the LPC artwork  images in an app, as long as you are able to credit such artwork as being CC-BY-SA 3.0, include a URL to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, and you give credit to the original artists, and mention the affiliated LPC, and you provide a URL to the LPC's sites, and a URL to Opengameart where they can obtain said images. 

You also can create derivative works, liked recoloring, redrawing, changing size or other ways of modifying the images, which you can also publicly display in your app, if you label appropriately which works were changed such as "Main Character based on original Goblin by ___", and you make any derivative artwork available under the same CC-BY-SA license, and prove a url to where the user could obtain said deriviative images. 

That should satisfy all of the CC-BY-SA terms. 

But if youve already submitted a game for the LPC, or your modifying the existing source code on one of those games, your game is stuck under a GNU license and would required releasing your game's source code. 

This is not such an old thread but I still don't wish to be seen as resurrecting it but this is related:

http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/anti-drm-waiver