Don't even start in about 'compatible licenses'!   That's a whole 'nother discussion!

I feel like we've circled right back to my first comment on this thread, which doesn't really surprise me much because my point was that it's a bottomless argument, and lo here we are going in circles about this project defines 'preferred source' this way and that group defines it this other way.

It doesn't end.

I understand the point your making here and I appreciate the predicament the heroic submission has put you in, but honestly, if you want the song in another format just ask.  If the author says no or doesn't respond, tell debian .ogg is the preferred format as provided by the original author.  If they don't accept that, find another song to use that has 'source' or is licensed differently.

I think you'll find that's a much more productive approach than trying to get OGA to enforce some new rigid yet amorphous standard on submissions.

As for the problem more generally, I wouldn't worry about that either.  It's only a tiny fraction submissions that even present the potential of being an issue, and even then, as pointed out above, that'd only be in the bizzarro world case where an author submitted something in one formatband then got mad because it wasn't being distributed in another format.

About Debian, what can be said except that the various 'exceptions' and contradictions in their 'gold' standard only show how arbitrary it truly is and just further highlight the wisdom of bart's more flexible, non-dogmatic approach.

I also get why having songs in alternative formats might be helpful for editing and generally useful for the site.   But again, if you'd like that, just go ahead and ask.   If you get even one submitter to post a more 'preferred source' file then you've just made OGA that much better.  And if not, just by asking and making it known that there's interest in that sort of thing, you'll still have accomplished more than you will trying to get OGA to enforce some new standard or worse purge all the existing GPL submissions on the grounds of impurity. 

To touch on some earlier points:

re: implicit distribution agreements

I get that if you go to some random website and start uploading pictures or what have you without ever having seen or agreed to some distribution agreement or license for them, then you are, by your actions, implicitly giving the site permission to redistribute the work.The difference is that on OGA a submitter explicitly choses a license or licenses for the work thus setting the terms for its distribution.   It's just impossible to believe that someone clicks GPL or CC-BY but then intends to let OGA distribute the work under some other terms.   

To bart's question of what if anything to do about GPL submissions moving forward.   I think this discussion well highlights the myriad of issues around GPL'd submissions and the tiny percentage of the overall archive they represent.  Given that, I don't think removing them or at least not accepting new GPL submissions would necessarily be such a bad idea.    But, of course, the flip side of that is true also.   They are not many GPL'd submissions and despite all the 'potential' issues they have yet to cause any major crisis for the site, so maybe keeping GPL as an option isn't the worst thing either.

ps:apologies for the funny formatting, I don't know what I did wrong but for the second time on this thread, I got stuck in some mode where new lines just would not appear in the final text no matter what I did.  They show up in the edit box, but not in the final comment.  So the best I could do was stick a bunch of empty bullet lists in here to break things up. 

Perhaps we could ask uploaders selecting gpl to provide the source, or say the assets are the preferred form. If (like Wesnoth) someone says the assets are the preferred form, then even if that seems dubious (e.g., ogg files for music), I'd say if that's good enough for Debian, I don't see why OGA should worry.

If uploading someone else's gpl art (or uploading a derived work), then I'd say they need to see what was specified as the source. So for the heroism piece, it'd be interesting to ask egoboo, do they have the sources, or can they declare the asset to be the source?

I agree with capbros, it'd be interesting to see what Debian say if you asserted that, for heroism, the ogg is the preferred form that the author supplied. If they don't accept that, challenge them to explain why that's different to Wesnoth.

In the example of supertux, I agree that is a clear violation when a separate source form existed. I think sorting out those issues, if any exist on OGA, makes sense.

Well, egoboo is available as source under GPL 3.0 here:

https://github.com/egoboo/egoboo

And that repo includes all the assets including the heroism song, all in ogg format and explicitly licensed as GPL 3.0 with no further 'source' files provided.   So I think you could reasonably assume that ogg is the 'preferred' form for the authors.

What does the O in OGA actually mean? I always understood it to stand for "open" as in "open source". That is, the author or a work enables the recipients to make derivative works (which would generally not be possible without the source form).

Hence, this thread is not really about the GPL. Independent of the license used, OGA should not accept any sourceless asset. Sourceless stuff is ultimately useless.

@gspliepen: In particular, I do not see anything to be gained from changing the license away from GPL.

The same goes for Debian.

caeles: That's a good point about the purpose of the site - though games are a derivative work[*], and surely the main purpose of this site, and it's possible to use assets on this site to make games, without needing things like Photoshop/GIMP or project files for whatever music program.

That said, there have been times when I wished there was some of the "source" available - most obvious example is seeing a spritesheet that's obviously been rendered from a 3D model, but not having that 3D model available.

Still, I don't see it would be good to make it a requirement - that might risk lots of assets not being on OGA at all. Rather it be something to encourage people to do, imo.

[*] Well, leaving aside the debate about whether games are derivative works or collections, but my point is, it's possible to use the assets to make games.

I did not write "useless" but "ultimately useless".
To stay with the case of music, here are some things you might want to edit at some point:
- Bugfix that one note which is G but should really be G#.
- Replace the guitar by a lute, because your setting is medieval.
- Speed up the whole song without changing pitch (SuperTux has that neat effect where, when you are about to run out of time, the background music speed doubles.).
- Adept the song to devices or formats other than those for which it was originally created, like different bit-depth, sampling rate, number of channels, dynamic range.
If you don't have the source, you cannot reasonably do the above (some of the above may be possible with a sacrifice in quality). Then, the song will eventually be obsoleted. It may have had some one-time, throw-away use. But in the end, it is dead matter. Nothing can grow from it. Hence, ultimately useless.

It is exactly the same as with sourceless programs. So if OGA users are fine with sourceless music, I wonder why they care about open games at all. Yes, denying sourceless art on OGA would turn away some artists. But for such art sites like FreeAsInBeerGameArt are a better fit anyway.

That's an extreme viewpoint, Caeles.  The vast majority of assets available here are "sourceless" in the sense of lacking an easily edited file.  Most of the music is streams (OGG/MP3/WAV), not sequences (MOD/XM/IT) or MIDIs.  Most of the art is PNG, GIF, and occasionally even JPEGs, with fairly rare instances where all the objects/items are broken down into individual layer files.  Enforcing your policy would require purging the vast majority of assets available here to begin with, and it's very likely the site would never have grown at all under such strict requirements.

The FAQ states the goal of the site : "The purpose of this site is to provide a solid (and hopefully ever-expanding) variety of high quality, freely licensed art, so that free/open source game developers can use it in their games."  In short, to provide good resources under usable license.  Getting the "source" files to art assets is merely a bonus, not a hard requirement.

Frankly, the pragmatic approach makes a lot of sense given the huge differences in workflow around artistic works.  I doubt any two artists really use exactly the same two toolsets or processes, unlike in software where this is not only common but practically standard.  As mentioned earlier in the thread, it's impossible to anticipate exactly what formats and structure would even be wanted by downstream users (unlike in software, where the complete source code as text is the obvious deliverable).

One other huge difference between art and code is that it's normal for audiovisual works to be usable in a pre-existing assembled form.  Precompiled executable code is rather different given the extreme degree of lock-in it experiences; it's specific to computer architecture and operating system.  Worse, it can have a potentially huge number of implicit dependencies, each of which may be version and/or implementation specific.  That's a complete nightmare for end users to deal with and a big part of why having the source code makes such a difference.  Obviously, source is much, much easier to edit than prebuilt binaries, and the gap is bigger than trying to edit a PNG vs an XCF.

Probably the best way to express the difference in perspective is this: is the site more a place for artists to find work they can easily edit and adapt from other artists, or a place for programmers/developers/management to find useful premade assets?  Not that it can't be both to some degree, but I think a site focused primarily on the former turns out very different than one focused on the latter.  There's room for both types of website in the world.

> The vast majority of assets available here are "sourceless"

And just to clarify, 'vast majority' here means 99.999% or thereabouts.

I think time has proven OGA's flexible approach to defining 'source' and 'open' to be for the best.  The site is very active, has a pretty dedicated and engaged user base, and most importantly has amassed a collection of over 14,000 artworks, all of which can be used in open source projects.  Maybe it's not perfect, but it's far from useless.

I think that the site as currently consituted has also proven to be a very valuable resource both for artists looking for works to learn from or build upon and for developers looking for useful premade assets.  So I don't think those two goals are necessarily mutually exclusive. 

@caeles:  I think you've made an excellent case for how more detailed 'source' files can be useful, but not a case for why less detailed source files are useless.  As discussed above, there alot of trade offs involved in destributing artworks in the exact form an artist used to create them, and indeed this is not always the preferred format for those looking to make changes.  So it's not always clear cut what format would be most useful for others, and, again as evidenced by this entire site, it's certainly not clear that 'sourceless' works are utlimately useless.    And to the point about 'sourceless' works becoming obsolete, I've been listening to the same recording of Zeppelin IV for twenty years now and it hasn't proven obsolete yet, even if I would love to fix Robert Plant's chipmunky vocals on Four Sticks. :)

If for a game to be open[1], you only require the engine to be open and not the art assets, then the game does not have special art asset requirements anymore: The same art can be used as for non-free games. Thus, you do not need a special site for art for such games.

So, if OGA has any purpose at all, it does not follow that interpretation.

[1] Above, I use "open" for the concept which is otherwise sometimes named "FLOSS", "FOSS", "free", "free as in speech", "libre" or "open source".

But the art on OGA is under licences that are "Free as in freedom".

Now sure, it is an interesting point that whilst source code is considered an essential part of being Free Software or Open Source, this doesn't seem to be the case for art. But the issue isn't with OGA, you're arguing against the entire consensus in the free software movement of how art licences are considered, as far as I can tell.

I believe the intent of OGA is to provide assets under free licences, and it does that. Having "source" for assets, where such a concept makes sense, is useful, but not a requirement. It doesn't matter whether the resultant game is considered "free" or not - after all, OGA assets could be used in closed source games.

"The same art can be used as for non-free games. Thus, you do not need a special site for art for such games."

But art under non-free licences often suffer from any of:

* Don't allow derivative works, so using in a game could be problematic.

* Don't allow redistribution at all, so using in a game is out of the question.

* Allow redistribution, but not commercial use, so is incompatible with being Free/Open.

* Paid-for licences typically won't be transferrable, so won't allow someone making a derivative of my game even if they don't modify the art.

* Custom written licences that might in theory allow everything licences on OGA allow, but aren't considered Free/Open for whatever reason - this increases risk of licence incompatibility, as well as typically being less clear on what is or isn't allowed.

If OGA serves no need, can you provide a link to another art site that can be used for game development just as well as OGA?

I just want to reiterate two points:

1. Source is expensive.  If we hosted the constituent parts of all our art, the hosting costs would be exponentially more costly, and upload times, page load times and downloads times would also balloon exponentially. You may have noticed that the patreon campaign on the home page is not covering costs as it stands. Bart literally pays for this site out of his own pocket, and you're asking him to personaly shell out huge sums of money to support your ideological position. If you want OGA to be hosting hundreds of terrabytes of data, you better also be suggesting a way to pay for it.

 2. Finalised art is the prefered format for most purposes.  This site is specifically to support game development, by helping developers who can't create their own artwork. If a dev can't create an artwork due to lack of time or skill or money, the odds are pretty good that they aren't going to be willing or able to edit the constituent files themselves. Most game devs we see want files that are as close to finished as possible. This is often problem since many of our files aren't completely "game ready", and devs aren't prepared to make them game ready. There have been many ideas to get artists to collaborate to get their works closer to game ready state, but for the most part artists prefer to work on their own new work, than someone else's unfinished work. Given this relative lack of people actually using or requesting constituent "source" files, it is pretty clear what the "prefered format" is for most of the community, and it is the game ready files, not the source files. If you're uploading a texture, most game devs are wondering if it has usable dimensions with matching specular, glow and bump mapping, not if it still has the photoshop layers.

 OGA acts as a repository which facilitates exchange between devs and artists on terms which are ultimately dictated by the artists. The artists are donating their time, skill and effort for the benefit of people they will never meet and games they will never play.  I can't speak for OGA as a whole, but personally I wouldn't want to do anything to discourage artists from that. When an artist says a file is GPL, then that says to me that they consider the final file to be the source they are distributing. Unlike binary code blobs, these final art formats can still be edited and remixed to some degree, you may not have the layers, brushes or libraries, but you can still rearrange those pixels to your hearts desire. If that is insufficiently sourcey for your purposes then ask for a different format, or find a different artist, because the license is ultimately between the dev and the artist, not between the dev and OGA. 

Indeed, p0ss, it all comes down to costs and benefits in the long run.  There's obvious costs, like hosting for the site and the time required to adapt a "source-level" asset to something more appropriate to the working concept for a game.  Yet there are also subtle costs that are not as easy to anticipate or measure.  Some more reasons that contributing artists don't upload project files can include: (1) the work was built from samples/textures/brushes/whatever whose license doesn't allow them to be separated, and (2) releasing an easily edited format introduces much more potential for competition from third-party artists who know how to use that particular workflow.  I get the impression that at least some of the contributors use OGA as a kind of work showcase to attract attention to their business.  If so, they wouldn't be likely to contribute as much, if anything, under a policy that requires top-to-bottom process files of everything they submit.

That said, some particular formats are very lightweight and act as a kind of self-documenting source (as well as being usable as-is).  Probably the best examples are SVG for vector images and MIDI for songs.  Contributions of that sort should always be heartily welcomed.  Personally, I learn a lot more from this type of material than, say, a PSD that I often can't even open correctly.

@mdwh: No, I cannot name another site that is as useful as OGA. Simply because I don't care about non-free sites, so I don't go there or know them.

I came to OGA via the LPC. The LPC put an emphasis on the art being open source. I was glad to fing a place that does it right and never noticed it does not extend to OGA, the organizer of the LPC.

Anyway, thanks everybody for clearing the misunderstanding.

Bye.

This thread has been an interested read, although I don't use The GPL license(glad I don't) I feel maybe I would like to add a comment.

the whole thing thing just seems 'Disasterous', and if something that can cause so many riffs begs the question  'why still use it at all?'

just ask yourselves for a minute, if GPL license did not exist, which license best covers your/the needs?

how many uploads in the last year or so have been uploaded using the GPL license? And how many have been downloaded? Is the GPL license putting people off downloading?

if such a license can cause issues with, developers, the uploading artist, OGA and whatever else isn't it best to just to nip it in the bud? Can't be anymore aurguments then?

dont get me wrong I'm not saying lose it, I'm saying if there's a real need for it then that's fair, but if there isn't as much call for it theses days then maybe think about suspending it, you can always ask the artist to do a personal preference format, or permission to do so.

just saying........apologies if my comments upset some.

@caeles: My point being, if there isn't another site that does what OGA provides, OGA still serves a need.

LPC is indeed an excellent showcase of doing things right - not only sources, but also being game ready with sufficient variations and animating to make a game in the same style of art.

But if we set those as requirements - I fear we'd end up with OGA being LPC, and not a huge amount else. Everyone agrees (I think) that in principle, more sources is a good thing, but (a) there's the question of how to do it, and (b) practical issues that some content has massive sources. LPC is a way to encourage such things by making a showcase of how to do things right - a "stick" approach would imo see OGA wither away due to lack of content, and be far less useful for game developers.

@chasersgaming I think the issue comes back to it having been used for older game art, which would be a shame to lose, and it's unclear if anything can be done to relicense them. The example of it causing problems is with Debian, who imo need to address their inconsistency if they allow games with gpl art without sources (well known games, so not ones that slipped through by mistake). It leads to the absurd situation that I could take a Debian game like FreeCiv, make a new game using it, and then not be able to distribute that game on Debian...

I have added a short note to the file upload field which simply says

"Editable source files are welcome and will make your work usable in more projects"

Stepping back from the GPL and legal stuff for a moment...

I think it would be great if the OGA community were to encourage contributors to release their source files either on the OGA website or elsewhere, no matter what the license they choose is.

Without the source files, certain types of modification are exclusive to the original creator, instead of being able to be done by anyone with the requisite tools and skills. This really restricts the creativity of people doing remixes, reworking, parody, game development etc. Even something simple like moving elements of a scene around is much harder.

I've personally taken over development of a few abandoned "open source" games and been prevented from tweaking artwork because the source for that artwork was never released and is now losts to the mists of time. In one case the author wanted the game renamed for me to continue working on it, but had lost the source for the main menu image, which included pre-rendered text from a non-free font with the name of the game, along with a pre-rendered 3D object. Due to the font glow and semi-transparent 3D object plus layer mixing, it is pretty much impossible to remove the name from the image. So I got de-motivated and shelved that project for now.

So, I would encourage creative folks to think about releasing source files and more importantly to think about what source is for them and what is the best way to enable themselves and others to make all kinds of future modifications to their works.

I also think that collaborative creation of artwork would be an interesting project, but something like that can only happen if people are willing and able to share their source files. I expect that the downsides of sharing source can be dealt with. Probably that is a topic for another thread though.

I would also like to applaud the Blender community for producing freely licensed movies and releasing both the source code for Blender and the source files they used to create their movies.

Disclaimer: I am a Debian member and contributor.

Edit: woops! Hadn't read to the end of the thread. Thanks a lot for adding that p0ss!

@p0ss:  I think a message like that is a great low-key way to encourage folks to upload source files.  And I think you put it in a very good place.

Only concern would be that it might be confusing for new users, ie. 'What is a source file?', 'Do they mean source code for my game?', 'Should I post just the source files or do they want the wav/png/whatever too?'

So...   How to clarify the basic idea without getting too verbose?

Maybe:

Editable source files (layered psd/xcf, MIDI or composer software formats, etc) are welcome and will make your work useful in more projects.  Just be sure to include the work in a game ready format (png, jpg, wav, ogg, etc) as well.