$12256 / $11500
Hi, I am an old user of the site, although only recently I created an account and did a submission, so I'm not used to the rules for it.
I created a Sprite stitcher program to create sprites for some of my games, and have been using the Cabbit-styled parts on it. However, to use the tool, the user needs to create specific folders and put each parts they intend to use at the correct folder. I wanted to submit the folder I use so other users could skip this process, but to make a submission, I have to add licenses for the entire submission, and from the example of another collection of Cabbit sprite parts, it seems like content with different licenses shouldn't go together at all.
However, splitting the submission into multiple ones would defeat the purpose of submitting the folder, since what matters most about it is precisely it's organization. So I want to know how I should publish said folder.
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
For what I can see, it's possible to put multiple lisences ? You Can allways put a "readme" text with all the lisence descriptions ;)
But since I newer submited anything yet and that I'm not a old user on OGA I'm not the right person to give you advises...
Waint til some other gives you advises ;)
No. Multiple licenses on a submission is not to indicate each license used by the content. More information to follow.
--Medicine StormThe various submissions you see on OGA that list multiple licenses are to indicate that the entire submission can be used under the terms of any one of the licenses listed, whichever the user prefers.
For example, if a submission contains asset 1, 2, and 3, and it lists license A, and license B. That means a developer is allowed to use asset 1, 2, and 3 under the terms of license A if they want... OR they can use asset 1, 2 and 3 under the terms of license B if they prefer. This is not the scenario you are dealing with.
If you want to submit assets where some assets are under license A, and some assets are under license B, you either need to:
As you said, option 1 would defeat the purpose, so let's look at option 2.
Many licenses can be adapted (changed) to a different license, but the adaptation is usually one-way. For instance. CC0 can be adapted to almost any license you want, including OGA-BY. Similarly, OGA-BY can be adapted to CC-BY. In turn, CC-BY can be adapted to CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA is pretty open, but still the most restrictive license of the four. There are other licenses to consider, but that should give us a place to start.
CC0 -> OGA-BY -> CC-BY -> CC-BY-SA
What licenses are the various parts in your collection of folders? Once we know that, we can figure out if there is a common license you can use to submit them all together.
P.S. the Cabbit collection you mentioned had a problem because- just like you discuss above- it contained multiple assets with various licenses, but it included a license that was not common to all assets in the submission. Asset-1 used OGA-BY and CC-BY, but Asset-2 only used CC-BY. By listing both OGA-BY and CC-BY, a problem arose becuase OGA-BY was not common to both assets, so either the OGA-BY license needed to be removed, or Asset-2 needed to be removed. The latter option was chosen. I doubt you'll need to remove assets to acheive a common license in your case, but we'll see. :)
--Medicine StormSorry for taking long to answer, had some personal issues at home and stayed away from my computer for some time.
From what I checked, their licenses are diferent combinations of CC0, CC-BY 3.0, OGA-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0. From the sequence of licenses you gave, I think this would make the entire submission use CC-BY 4.0, but I am not sure if I really can use CC-BY 4.0 for stuff originally licensed with CC-BY 3.0 or the 4.0 version removed restrictions the 3.0 version had.
Correct. CC-BY 4.0 would be the common license except for the content licensed CC-BY 3.0, which are not adaptable to CC-BY 4.0. However, if they are assets on OGA, it is possible the author preemptively agreed to include the latest version of the CC-BY license "when it becomes available", and now version 4.0 is available.
If you can provide a list of urls to each of the assets used, I will be able to determine if the authors made such an allowance.
--Medicine StormWouldn't be a good solution, that it is visible for everyone, if that option is checked?
There are so many that were uploaded before the 4.0 version existed, at least where I have not seen it.
Yes. That would be ideal. If you take a look at the GitHub for OGA and identify in the site code what may make that visible (and accurate), by all means suggest the code change. For now, I have to determine it manually. :(
--Medicine StormOk, where I read this, I also want to know if there are problems with one of these or not
https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-animated-water-and-waterfalls
https://opengameart.org/content/tuxemon-tileset
https://opengameart.org/content/rpg-indoor-tileset-expansion-1
I use these for new tuxemon tilesets and these are all under version 3 only.
All three allow later versions.
--Medicine StormOk, good. Then I can (and need) to release them under CC-BY-SA 4.0, I used at least one that is only under a 4.0 Version. The only thing I need to do anyway is to give credits like usual.
What's the state of that old bug where the field for later versions was being set even if the user didn't set it?
https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/bug-allow-later-license-versions-is-n... says that the "later versions" was hidden because of that bug. That was 2013, I don't know whether the bug was fixed (and the database entries voided, or is still present?)
@marko:
the information that displays based on that check box is still not visible. however, the correct state of the check box is retained behind the scenes. So the only accurate way to determine if the user checked that box or not is to manually check behind the scenes on a case by case basis for now.
--Medicine StormLooks like only submissions with revisions are 100% accurate. Let me reassess the stuff I've checked in the past.
--Medicine StormLooks like nearly all of the assessments I did before are accurate, but not all of them. Apologies for that. I should have been more cognizant of the bug that Marko mentioned. Thanks for calling that to attention, Marko.
Of the three submissions rubberduck mentioned above, LPC animated waterfall I am unsure of, so it should not be treated as if version 4.0 of the license is allowed. We can ask zapaper for confirmation, though.
--Medicine Stormok, I think asking him is a good idea.
In case version 4.0 doesn't work the best solution is to split the tileset into 2
Basically what I did with these is that I shrunk them down to 16x16 tiles and modified the colors a bit
I am working on a few different tilesets already, where I am using a few tiles from https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-floors, which is only under CC-BY-SA 4.0,