$12256 / $11500
Would it be obnoxious to ping a bunch of contributors (by commenting on one of their submissions) explaining the anti-drm clause of the CC-BY 3.0 license and not recommending the OGA-BY license, but letting the artist know that OGA-BY was created specifically to be CC-BY 3.0 sans anti-DRM clause.
I ask because I found myself pinging a few artists on this subject already and was thinking about pinging a few more, but I thought I should sample opinion on the matter first. So far the response to my comments have all been positive, but I don't want to be a nuisance.
Of course, there's some slight self interest involved as I like to publish on DRM'ed platforms, so CC-BY stuff is not usable directly by me. But I do think there's a lot of honest confusion about the CC-BY license. I think many folks just select it because they like the attribution requirement w/o realizing the anti-DRM stuff is even there. I've even seen a few cases where commentors will say they used a work in a game published on a DRM'd service and the artists writes back thanking them, so it seems likely they are not concerned about the anti-DRM aspect of the CC-BY license.
If it helps, the general wording, I've been using goes something likse this:
"I wanted to mention that CC-BY license contains a clause prohibiting use on platforms that use DRM. Since most commercial platforms (IOS, Android, PS, XBox, Steam) have some form of DRM this does limit what folks can do with your art. Of course, if (like most folks ;) you hate DRM maybe that's what you want. :) At any rate, I thought I'd mention it, since it's something many, many people miss when reading over the CC-BY license. Bart has created an OGA-BY license, which contains an attribution requirement but no DRM restrictions which you can use if attribution is your main concern."
And I've been closing with the comment:
"Just to be clear, I'm not trying to tell you how to license your work, that's totally your decision, and you are aces in my book just for sharing no matter what the license you choose. I just thought I'd mention this, as it is something that has tripped up many folks in the past."
Well, again, I thought I'd ask, so what do folks think? Is this sort of 'evangelism' ok?
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
So before we get started...
I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal relationship. Although I have made a good faith effort to convey the situation accurately and clearly, I can make no guarantee that my assessment or your interpretation of it are accurate. Use at your own risk.
I would like to say yes, it is just a friendly pointer of another option that may interest them and a brief description of why. That said "not a lawyer" text and read the licenses reminders are probably a smart move.
The problem I have with this is that there is no way to easily check if someone has been sent a message like this before and repeated telling someone something they already know can be frustraing.
So take my Sara 3D model for instance. It is currently posted as CC-BY 3.0. I would like to post it as CC0, however it is a derived work of a CC-BY 3.0 work namely Sara the OGA mascot. In Section 8.b of the CC-BY 3.0 it says:
"Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License."
The result being that I can not distribute Sara under a "pure" CC0, without first obtaining permision from the current rights holder (probably "Mandi Paugh"). If I were to try it would result in a CC0/CC-BY 3.0 hybrid and the end result would be worse than what it is now. (I am pretty sure this clause is a legal mine field by the way.) So with that said unless I get permision to change the license by the owner of the IP, I probably will not change the license listed for Sara. (You can have it CC0 on all work considered mine if you want, but I don't think that is very helpfull ^.^)
So with that said I feel I have a good reason why my CC-BY work can not (reasonably) be licensed OGA-BY. Now lets say I got around to making 3D models of all of Mandi Paugh's old characters and every time I posted one, somewhere in the top three comments, someone asked "Have you considered the OGA-BY?". It would be discouraging.
In the end I like what you are doing, but if you or anyone else reading this feels like they should keep preaching their favorite license, consider the following:
* Your favorite license is not the best license for every situation.
* The person you are talking to might have a reason for their choice that is out of your control.
* This might be a good time to discuss payment for a different license instead of just asking for more rights. (This is the recommended use of the GPL and CC-BY-SA on OGA.)
* Pestering artist everytime they upload could stop them from uploading, so make a decent effort to check that they do not already know.
* Be friendly and make it clear that you are not offering legal advice, unless you are willing to go down with the ship.
* If the artist changes the license agreement or takes the time to explain why they do not want to, you should let them know you appreciate that.
I would note that Bart might be able to relicense Sara's design/sprites under OGA-By. I don't know what rights he holds exactly, or how in touch with Mandi he is these days, but it's a distinct possibility.
I personally like OGA-By a lot, I've put it on everything I can of mine. As Saliv said, I don't think anyone will get upset as long as you approach it tactfully, which I have no doubt you will.
Thanks for the tip Redshrike. I plan to look into that when my schedule clears up.
Why can't I choose a simple license that just enforces crediting the original author. For example MIT, zlib, BSD. Instead of pages of legalese.
I think adding Expat would be a good idea. However, don't mix copyright notice and attribution: the former can be hidden deep in the source files, the other must be prominent.
thanks for the thoughts.
@Saliv: Yeah you raise an interesting example with the case of derived work. Also, I totally get your point about not harassing folks. It's exactly what I'm concerned about, putting folks off from posting because everytime they do they get a lecture/nag about license stuff.
I guess the best I can do is try to scan the comments for the contributors other works to see if the issue has been raised to them already. I have found already that checking through an author's contributions is a good way to get a general sense of whether they may have selected CC-BY deliberately or if have they picked it not fully understanding the DRM part. I guess just because if you see someone post things under a variety of different licenses, you can inferer that they have some familiarity with the different licenses. On the other hand, like I say, sometimes you can see by the comments that the contributor is not interested in restricting their work from being used on DRM'd platforms.
Well, I guess I'm still undecided if I should proceed. Like I say, I don't want to make a pest of myself and OGA seems to have a really good culture going, I don't want to do anything to jeopordize that. On the otherhand, the DRM stuff in CC-BY is pretty widely misunderstood/missed. Argh! See I'm undecided ;)
Well, anyone have any better ideas on how to help folks better understand the disctinction between CC-BY and OGA-BY?
https://withthelove.itch.io/
Someone gives you something for nothing and you demand they give you more? Personally there would be few better ways to earn my eternal animosity.
If they've stated in their submission that they are unsure of licensing then it's fine to advise them on the matter.
To baselessly presume ignorance is just plain disrespectful.
Red warrior needs caffeine badly.
Well... for me (presume ignorance) it'd be great if the licenses were explained in simple words. Like a simple link 'which license to choose?' under license choosing menu. Not 10 pages of text, just keep it simple like: for OGA-BY here: Author must be attributed, User must provide a link to OGA, DRM allowed (why? -> link), derivative works must be of the same license, etc.
And maybe add some usage notes like 'CC-BY-NC' might be a trouble for the user because 1,2,3,... i.e. a FAQ on a set of often-occuring errors, misunderstandings, etc...
@surt: I understand your point, and I suppose no matter how tactfully it's put, it'll always come off to some degree as 'asking for more', although that is sincerely not the intent. I do feel strongly that it is the artists decision how they want to distribute their work, and that folks shouldn't be pressured into one license or another. Like I say in the message text, folks are aces in my book no matter how they share their stuff.
However, I do think it's fair to say there is a lot of confusion around the anti-DRM clause of the CC-BY license. There are quite a few long forum discussions on the topic, and in particular http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/anti-drm-waiver springs to mind as a placewhere many long time/frequent OGA contributors have acknowledged that they didn't intend for their work to be restricted from use on DRM'd platforms when they chose the CC-BY license.
I say this not to be defensive, but just to explain that I am not trying to be a greedy bastard. I honestly think it's a pretty common thing for submitters to look at the licenses, click on CC-BY and think: 'you can use my work but you must credit me', yes that's what I want, without realizing that the 'technical measures' bit refers to using the work on DRM'd platforms (which make up the bulk of commercial platforms in today's world :(
I think where that leaves you is a place where artists submit work hoping to see it used in some fun projects, commercial or otherwise. But only less license savy or conscientious developers will use it, whereas the more learned/respectful developers will stear clear of it. Since (IMHO) respectful developers make it their business to be learned about proper licensing, this roughly translates to folks who are going to steal your work anyway do so and folks who want to use it legitamitely steer clear of because of the unintended anti-DRM stuff. I don't mean this a attack on CC-BY, I totally get the point of the 'technical measures' clause. I'm just saying this is what can happen if folks choose CC-BY w/o understanding the anti-DRM bit.
That said, you raise a good point, that's all alot of supposition on my part, and it's wrong to just assume people have made a choice in ignorance. And I suppose no matter how nicely it's stated, it's hard for a message like this not to come off as in some way muscling folks toward a particular license.
Like I say, that's why I'm struggling with this approach and why I posted this thread. I do think it's a genuine problem but I don't want to try and solve it in a way that bothers folks or damages the OGA community in anyway. Lord knows 'license wars' have killed many a good online community before and I'd hate for something like that befall OGA.
Finally let me say, you are definitely one of the last artists I'd want to scare off of OGA!
@eugeneloza: I think you are right, and this is probably a better approach, try to educate contributors on the way in, so they can select the license they intend upfront.
There is a breakdown of the license in the general site faq:
http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary
But:
a) it is pitched a bit more toward developers/users than artists/submitters
b) it isn't linked anywhere from the art submission form (which has just links to the more detailed descriptions of each license)
c) it doesn't mention the OGA-BY license
d) it also doesn't mention the anti-DRM bits of CC-BY/SA licenses
In fact, the 'CC-BY' bit says 'Provided the author is properly credited, it is generally safe to use this content in a commercial work.' Which, if I didn't know better, I would assume meant CC-BY stuff was fine to use on DRM'd platforms. Actually, as a conscientous developer, this is what I assumed when I first discovered OGA based on that faq as well as the general license overview provided by the creative commons site. It wasn't until I saw a forum post on the topic that I understood that the 'technical measures' bit was referring to DRM. So maybe that's another reason I'm sensitive to this subject, I've made the same mistake just from the other side.
@Bart, any interest in updating the site FAQ to include some mention of the DRM stuff? What about a more submitter friendly version? (Something like 'Choosing the license that's right for you...') Or a link from the submission form to a general license faq?
https://withthelove.itch.io/
I can't say that I really agree with you, Surt. There is a big difference between a request and a demand. "Would you consider tweaking the licensing to deal with this weird issue so I can be 100% sure that I can use it in my game" is completely different from the more aggravating type of "I need this but all animated and in 32x32 resolution for my game, no pay but you can put it in your portfolio" 'request.' Even a straight up license-alteration request ("Any chance you'd be willing to CC-By this so I can use it in my project?) isn't unreasonable as long as you're polite about it. It's also not unfair to assume that people are unaware of OGA-By (unless they're a well-known FOSS creator or OGA regular like you). Frankly, the DRM clause of CC-By was not properly disclosed and hasn't been well known for long. And most artists really aren't aware of the intricacies of FOSS licensing issues.
Confused.. Does anyone know if a DRM free game that can be purchased on steam conflicts with CCBY?
more DRM free Steam game info here --> http://steam.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games
All games on Steam use some form of DRM. If your game is not available as a non-Steam game, then it has DRM.
But.. Steam can just be used to purchase/download.. and then is no longer required to run the game from there on.. How's that different from using a website DRM wise?
@Calinou: This is not quite true. Most games on Steam use some form of DRM, but Steam by itself is DRM agnostic and there are games on Steam (like Dwapook said) that can be run without it. The choice of a developer to only release a game on Steam does not mean that the game itself has DRM.
Edit: and just as a general point to add, Android software can also be published DRM free, thus CC-by artwork can be used on Android contrary to what was stated earlier in this thread. Problematic are only consoles (Xbox, Playstation etc.) and iOS AFAIK.
--
http://freegamedev.net
Interesting, pretty sure that is how my game functions on Steam. Steam just downloads the exe but you can run the game just fine w/o steam, and I'm pretty sure you could just copy the files around to run them elsewhere if you wished.
Somebody's summary of the different flavors of DRM on steam here:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?10737-Can-someone-...
Wonder how it changes if you integrate Steamworks (acheivements, steam cards, etc) libraries into the game?
https://withthelove.itch.io/
Then you need proprietary software to even download the game, it can be considered DRM.
Same goes for using Steamworks libraries.
@Dwapook: Calinou raises a good point. Overall, I would just say that I personally would not want to be caught in court trying to argue that a game on Steam is 100% DRM free, or more pointedly, that it in no way violates the CC-BY's 'technical measures' clause. For me, it's just a case of 'better safe than sorry'.
https://withthelove.itch.io/
@Calinou: What about (for example) the proprietary firmware in your (ISP's) router that you need to download anything? This entire argument isn't black and white, but if a piece of software on my PC doesn't have any build-in limitations to where and when I can run it (including offline), I would consider it DRM free, and that is the case with quite a few games you can download via Steam.
And besides that, "DRM free" is still proprietary software in most cases, thus the entire argument of how restricting DRM is to the freedom of the user is a bit moot.
P.S.: yes steamworks integration is a form of light DRM. But it is not mandatory on Steam.
--
http://freegamedev.net
@Julius:
> "DRM free" is still proprietary software in most cases, thus the entire argument of how
> restricting DRM is to the freedom of the user is a bit moot.
This is an interesting point. In my case, I always encode all data files from my games using a custom (though pretty simple) bit scrambler and crc checker. This is to ensure the integrity of the files at run time. The idea is to make sure nothing's corrupted and prevent users from trivially cheating by twiddling config numbers or changing sprites or whatever. Even my case aside, it's really common for games to use propertiary file formats for their data (most because us gearhead programmers can always think of a 'better' way to store/load/format data ;)
I'm sure this could be construed as violating the 'technical measures' clause, if not in letter at least in spirit, since it makes it hard for users to access the work directly.
https://withthelove.itch.io/
"Then you need proprietary software to even download the game, it can be considered DRM."
This does not "restrict the ability of those who receive a CC-licensed work to exercise rights granted under the license" (quoting from https://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Application_of_effecti... ). As long as those who have downloaded it can exercise their right, it isn't DRM just to limit who can access it. CC even give the allowed example of access being limited to a set of people via a password. (True yes, you can't be 100% sure of how a court will interpret it, but that goes for OGA-BY too, which also has had far less in the way of coverage, overview by lawyers, or testing in the courts.)
Please don't do that. Sooner or later you're lose the source code to your game, and you or someone else will want to republish it on some future platform, and it will prove all but impossible. Case in point: Baldur's Gate 2 Enhanced Edition.
Seriously, use standard file formats.
As for the cheating argument, if a game is purely single-player, without as much as an online leaderboard, there's no way players can "cheat". They can only experience the game as they feel fit. And you can CRC any kind of file or combination thereof anyway...
@all: Just to circle back to the original topic and close out this thread, I want to clarify that following surt's advice, I will refrain from pinging contributors about the difference between CC-BY and OGA-BY unless they explicitly mention being new to licensing or request help understanding the different licenses.
Per eugeneloza suggestion, I have opened a separate forum topic to discuss how to improve the licensing FAQ on OGA to help folks better understand the different licenses at the time of submission.
thanks all for your thoughts!
@claudeb: thanks for the pointer re: file formats, hadn't really considered any '10 years down the road' scenarios, so you've certainly given me food for thought on the subject. In the short term, all the art for my released game is available under OGA-BY on this site, in standard file formats ;)
https://withthelove.itch.io/