Hi folks.
Given the restrictions on technical measures in CC-BY and the long discussion about it, I think it's time to (ugh) introduce a new license that should address the issue. I'm propsing an OGA-BY license, which is essentially the text of CC-BY with the restrictions on technical measures removed. You can read the draft here:
http://static.opengameart.org/OGA-BY-3.0.txt
Note that modifying the CC licenses is allowed according to the Creative Commons, provided all of their trademarks are removed.
Here's a short FAQ about it.
How is this license different from CC-BY?
We have enough DRM alredy. Why are you making a license that allows it?
I hate DRM as much as the next guy. To be honest, I can't stand Apple and their ilk; however, this license isn't about what I want, it's about what artists want. There are a lot of artists on OGA who would like a license that requires attribution but doesn't prevent people from using the work with DRM. OGA is not in the business of telling artists how they should license their work, or deciding whether weak or strong copylefts are "better". There are people who have strong opinions on this either way, and what's important is that artists have the options available that are in line with what they want.
To be honest, the "technical measures" clause in CC-BY takes too many people by surprise. Most people choose it because they want as many people as possible to be able to use their work so long as they give credit.
Will you be removing CC-BY as a license choice?
No.
Will there be an OGA-BY-SA?
Possibly, although the terms would be a lot more complex, and I'd have to write them myself (and I'm not a lawyer). Since technical restrictions (DRM) could essentially render the sharealike clause moot by preventing people from accessing a work, it's essentially pointless (in my opinion) to put out a sharealike license that allows for DRM. The remedy for that would be to allow for "parallel distribution", meaning that it would be okay to release the work with DRM provided a DRM-free version could be downloaded elsewhere. People who know more about licenses than I do have told me that this is actually complicated from a legal standpoint, so I'm hesitant to try and write something myself.
If there are enough artists who want a sharealike license that allows DRM but don't care about parallel distribution, I'll do the same thing with CC-BY-SA that I did with CC-BY, however at the monent I'm not convinced that many people would care one way or the other (that is, most people who don't mind their work being used with DRM would tend to prefer weak copylefts like CC-BY).
Will there be a "license deed" for OGA-BY?
Yes, once everything is ironed out.
License proliferation is bad. Do we really need yet another license?
Believe it or not, this isn't something I did willy nilly. The idea has been bouncing around in my head for well over a year now, and I've mentioned it several times. It's just that the DRM waiver forum thread was inevitably going to result in a bunch of little "riders" to CC-BY that would all be slightly different from one another. In terms of license proliferation, it's better to make a single standard version than have twenty people make their own versions, all with the same intent.
In short; License proliferation was already happening, and I'm trying to keep it under control.
Missed a spot? "Creative Commons does not authorize the use by either party of the term "OpenGameArt.org" or any related trademark or logo of OpenGameArt.org without the prior written consent of OpenGameArt.org.."
My project: Bits & Bots
Got it, thanks. :)
Sorry Bart, didn't mean to force your hand. Just wanted to bring up the DRM clause in CC licenses that are more than likely a gotcha since they're not advertised >.<
By the way, GPL is the same as CC in terms of software licenses. Don't know if you want to tackle that or not since OGA is primariliy a content host, not a software repo or software source repo. It might be in the best interest of OGA to make OGA-BY compatible with GPL and CC at the same time since neither likes to play nice with the other.
While we are at it, how about an "OGA-by-SA" that has a source requirement and is strong copyleft in the sense that it can only be used in "Free Software" compatible projects? :p
--
http://freegamedev.net
I like it. If you do produce an SA version, please consider clarifying the definition of an Adaptation in the context of games. It might be worth adding it into this one just for consistency.
If you did make an -SA version and made it agree with the FAQ then it wouldn't be so far to rewrite the FAQ to use OGA-BY-SA as the example next to GPL instead of the CC version (thus making the FAQ more accurate!)
@William: Don't worry about it. The fact that the response was so big proves that there's an immediate need, so I'm responding to that.
@Julius: I've had extensive email discussions on the CC community mailing list about that, and the fact is that even though I came up with (IMO) a reasonably effective way of doing this that would still be free software, they're so intent on the idea that it's impossible that it would never be accepted, and I'm not going to put up licenses that will never be accepted by the community, even if I happen to believe that they're valid. (OGA-BY is protected from this by clause 8g, which allows the work to be used under CC-BY, which is already an established license.) I'm done with that fight. If someone else wants to take it up for me, then by all means go for it. I'd love to see the license you're asking for, but outside of OGA, no one is remotely interested in entertaining the idea.
If you're interested in reading this (very long) discussion, you can find it archived on the web here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2011-December/006456.html
I gave up when people started claiming (in all seriousness) that a word processor is meant to open a specific document, rather than as a tool for opening many documents.
I can't use OGA as the driving force behind getting the license accepted, because people who use the art here need to know that the licenses are already considered to be acceptable by the community at large.
I really would love to have two -SA licenses, one which doesn't require you to open-source your project, and one which does, both with the copyleft for direct derivatives. But I know how difficult that is, and I know you only have so much time and energy.
So instead, I will just say: Bravo to you for OGA-By! I will be adding it to all of my CC-By art when I get a chance. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
As Bart says, this isn't about promoting DRM (heck no!) or Apple (ESPECIALLY not promoting Apple). I just don't want to punish innocent devs for Apple's sins. I want people to see FOSS as useful and welcoming.
@Redshrike
I couldn't have said it better. Innocent devs and artists shouldn't get caught in the middle of the open-source vs DRM platforms argument. Let's be the better person and extend the symbolic olive branch to all involved and be the embassy of FOSS ideals rather than their hammer.
This sounds like it'd be a bit interesting in that users can more easily assign a license, but once again I reiterate that CC-BY-SA does not force users to make their projects open source and people should really avoid using this license if they want anyone using their assets to force any projects made to be open source (and even if it did force the game to be open source, it could still be commercial anyway).
Like everyone else I hate DRM (I don't hate Apple but I disagree with some of their policies), but I'd like to be able to release games on as many platforms as possible and I know other people would, too.
~~~~~~
Follow Me:
https://www.twitch.tv/jaidynreiman
https://www.youtube.com/jaidynreiman
https://github.com/jrconway3
https://ko-fi.com/jaidynreiman
An LGPL like license for content where the share alike requirment is limited to works of similar type would be best.
To be fair I think that is the best choice as Open Game Art is about the game art not free software projects.
It doesn't need restictions on what projects can be used, open source programs are very dificult to sell and game developers outside of hobbiest need to pay the bills so they can't waste any cent.
But what game developers CAN DO is to open parts of their game and art is an obvious choice.
CC-BY is great but it doesn't help grow our art, CC-BY-SA does that but its a legal minefield.
A license that has the abilty of paralel downlad and a limited share alike to type would be perfect.
Lets take LPC sets, a game company can use the art for their game and any derivates of type would be shared back, and can still be used on app store or steam or whatever.
Furthermore since they use the same style any new tilesets are compatible with LPC and they could share it back.
For the characters this doubles so since there would be even more derivative.
We could have free sets that could match RPG Maker in quality and quantity and this can be freely used for open source projects.
Limiting only to open source projects is foolish.
Instead of a new license option why not just add an option to append a standard DRM waiver to any relevant license?
Red warrior needs caffeine badly.
I'm with surt on this one. If the only major change is omission of the anti drm clause, then I'd just put a non mandatory checkbox with a little description below it, just like the 'allow later license versions' option.
I know you are trying to make the submission page less complicated, but it's one checkbox more either way. And I think the whole issue would be more exposed this way, everyone submiting art would see it, otherwise new people coming from outside might just choose CC-BY as it's familiar to them, not looking into OGA-BY at all.
-edit:
I think people first need to get more educated about their choices, before being given more of them. (this includes myself)
Also naming it OGA-BY could suggest that it is in some way the official or preferred license option.
Red warrior needs caffeine badly.
Gonna have to agree with surt on this. Having a check box that's separate from the licenses that allows waiving the DRM clause would solve the problem completely. It could be assumed (or in the FAQ) that by waiving the DRM clause you do so for all possible licenses chosen. Making a whole new license might confuse people and encourage them to believe it's the preferred license for OGA.
Just my two cents, I would prefer a new license (OGA-BY) to just a check box for waiving DRM clause. Just seems cleaner, I'd feel better knowing I was using an asset that was explicitly licensed to allow DRM, rather than licensed in a way that prohibts DRM but author waives that portion of the license agreement. It's just nicer to point to a single license agreement, rather than license agreement plus rider. Especially if the point of the rider is to negate things in the license agreement.
I do see the point that calling the OGA-BY may make it seem like that's the preferred license for this site, but that's also a lot in how you present it, eg. if it's the first license listed, then yeah it will look like that's the one you are 'supposed' to use, if it's the last one listed, not as much. I think the important thing is to present things in a way that gets the author thinking about what license is right for the work they're posting.
I rather like the idea of having a separate license. Putting it in one package makes it more portable than having two separate things.
Of course OGA-BY should be the prefered license, it's a fix to CC-BY
OGA-BY-SA can be as fix to CC-BY-SA
@adrix89
I don't think the OGA site should have a preferred license. It's up to the individual creator to decide how they want to share their work with the rest of us.
@Adrix89: It is not a fix per se, it is a modification. While it makes the license closer to how I want it to work, that isn't necessarily the case for everyone. Which is preferred is up to the individual.
I see that anything related to No Additional Terms has been removed - e.g., the bit about not imposing additional terms that restrict the terms, not just the DRM bit. And this is a good thing - this makes it a true "permissive" licence, and makes it a useful and distinct licence to CC-BY. Licence proliferation is indeed a bad thing, but I agree this really does seem to be a gap in the available choice of licences. It's also better than people simply offering waivers to CC-BY, since it's vague which bits of the legal licence have actually been removed. This is why I'd also oppose a tickbox - a legal licence needs to be explicit, and any modifications must be explicit about how it's changed, not just a vague description of waiving terms (and simply waiving the DRM bit doesn't remove the other restrictions).
I agree that an OGA-BY-SA is pointless, as someone can just use DRM to get round the licence. Indeed, I'd argue it's actively bad, as it effectively rewards people for using DRM. There is also the issue that breaking DRM to regain those freedoms is in some countries a criminal offence, whilst legal terms would be a civil issue. I'm not sure why artists would want such a licence, or what it would be useful for(?)
So I'm in entire agreement.
Ideally we'd want any new licence to be acknowledged by the FSF and OSI as a Free licence (and preferably Debian too, though they are always very picky...) One of the issues as an Open Source developer is that even if a licence looks fine for me, it's useful to be something that is accepted as "Free" to ensure distribution on Free channels.
Though as you note, OGA-BY can trivially be relicenced as CC-BY, so perhaps this isn't an issue anyway.
I'm in agreement with part of this. I think it feels more official for it to not just "be a checkbox." The only problem I see is it needs to be accurately clarified what exactly the license does.
I'm still trying to figure out what "removing" the "anti-DRM" clause would have in ruining CC-BY-SA. What does CC-BY-SA do that would affect it? Removing the anti-DRM clause still forces any derivatives of the asset to be released under the same license, or are you under the impression that CC-BY-SA extends to source code? Which it does not, only GPL does.
CC-BY-SA simply means that if you take that asset and make an extension of it or alter it a bit it that update must be released under the same license. It doesn't say that if you use those assets in an application the whole application must also be released under the same license, code and assets are separate and can be licensed separately. Its often easier to license the whole project the same, but that's not a requirement.
GPL strictly states that if you use something that is GPL in your project, the whole project must be GPL. CC-BY-SA makes no such distinction and derivatives do not extend as far as a lot of people seem to believe.
There is a questionable line on what is a derivative and what isn't, but making a game using certain assets does not make a game a derivative of those assets. If you make a game using an existing engine, said game is a derivative of that engine, though (the game's source code anyway).
~~~~~~
Follow Me:
https://www.twitch.tv/jaidynreiman
https://www.youtube.com/jaidynreiman
https://github.com/jrconway3
https://ko-fi.com/jaidynreiman
Random thoughts on dual licencing:
* If OGA went with a tick box, I would hope it's made clear that the recipient can choose whether to accept the waiver? (At first you might say, why would anyone want the more restrictive version? The answer is, if I want to distribute an Open Source game with a straightforward CC BY asset, rather than some modified licence.)
* Whilst I think the proposed OGA BY licence should be relicencable as CC BY, to be sure, perhaps to be explicit, it could be set up that choosing OGA BY also automatically selects CC BY, as a dual licence.
"Removing the anti-DRM clause still forces any derivatives of the asset to be released under the same license"
But if I distributed my derivative of that asset in a DRM game where it wasn't possible to redistribute/edit/get-hold-of that asset, then users have lost the rights they were supposed to have under the original CC BY-SA licence.
It's not a useless licence as such, GPL v2 managed fine for years - but it does give a loophole to those using DRM. I'm not sure why an artist would want to choose a version of CC BY-SA without the DRM clause, but still wanting the strong copyleft clauses?
I agree that CC BY-SA shouldn't apply to a whole game (indeed, therefore I think it ought to be fine if someone puts DRM on the binary, so long as it doesn't restrict the derived asset in question).
"But if I distributed my derivative of that asset in a DRM game where it wasn't possible to redistribute/edit/get-hold-of that asset, then users have lost the rights they were supposed to have under the original CC BY-SA licence."
No because that'd be illegal. You have to release the asset separately regardless of whether the game is DRM or not. If you don't follow the license, e.g., allow the derived asset to be available for public use outside of the game itself, you are in violation of the license and have no right to use that asset.
COULD people do that? Yes, but they'd be in violation of the license. The derived asset must be released separately to the public under the same license.
~~~~~~
Follow Me:
https://www.twitch.tv/jaidynreiman
https://www.youtube.com/jaidynreiman
https://github.com/jrconway3
https://ko-fi.com/jaidynreiman
OGA-BY-SA
Would have the parallel downlaod abilty.
The assets would be shared even if not in the app so the share alike still stands but in another form.
Stop saying tis pointles to relicens CC-BY-SA, it is a mess and another license would be better and more clear.
I think the legally hairy part is authorizing distrubtion in DRM from contigent upon non-DRM being available. Especially when you consider the party doing the DRM-form distributing will most likely not be the same as the party handling the DRM-free distribution.
GPL handles this by distinguishing between compiled executables/libraries and source code. With software, source code is what you really care about being free, so distribution of compiled binaries is pretty much unrestricted so long as the corresponding source is freely available.
Perhaps, a similar distinction is needed for game assets, unfortunately, there isn't a convient analog to the source/binary distinction. I guess you could think of it as bundled vs. unbundled. I think this is why Bart was warning the OGA-BY is a simple change, but the 'dual distribution' solution would take alot more work to put together.
Bart, still planning to add this license or did we talk it to death on this thread?
Yeah, I'm still planning on it, although it should be noted that I'm only planning on an OGA-BY at this time.
I understand that we may want to avoid the appearance that OGA endorses this particular license over other ones, so if someone has any suggestions for names, I'm happy to listen.
Note that the name will need to sound reasonable and also make it clear that it's analogous to CC-BY. That is, the name should be in the form of ____-BY. If I don't get any good ones, I'm just going to go with OGA-BY.
PD-BY
NT-BY (Non-technical attribution)
Red warrior needs caffeine badly.
OGA-BY sounds fine to me. For someone who hasn't heard of it, it should be immediately obvious that it's an attribution license. If they have any familiarity with OGA then they'll know that it's a libre license that allows both commercial and non-commercial sharing and modification. It's intuitive with little room for confusion.
I personally am less charmed by the name OGA-BY because it sounds like it's site-specific, which there's no real reason why it has to be. I liked surt's suggestion: NT-BY.
On the other hand, I'm mostly in favor of what was discussed earlier, instead of a new license there should be a "restriction waivers" option that gives the same effect.
Regarding why I'm not going to go with a waiver: mostly, it would add some confusion to the form as well as forcing an extra click.
The waiver really only reasonably applies to CC-BY (adding a similar provision to CC-BY-SA is a lot more complicated, because then you have to get into parallel distribution and such, and I'm not comfortable with trying to write licensing to do that). So if there were a waiver, there would need to be a special checkbox on the form just for if someone clicked on CC-BY, which adds to the complexity of the form from a technical standpoint, and also would make my life hell in terms of getting searching to work reasonably.
Think of it this way: If you're a developer wanting to make a game for the iphone store, you'll want to search for waived CC-BY content, and also all CC0 content. However, CC0 content won't have the waiver because it doesn't require one, so if I force the developer to filter their art search on the waiver field, they've then eliminated a bunch of perfectly valid CC0 results, which means I'd have to write up a special, custom field for that purpose.
So, all other things being equal, a special waiver would make the site way harder for me to maintain, and also potentially more confusing and harder to use for people submitting and searching art. So to some extent, the decision just to create a new license is a practical one, because from my standpoint it's far, far cleaner and easier to do.
Bart, I agree with you. I just hate to be forced into creating another license. You've already expressed your hesitance to do that, but I think there's a legitimate case to introduce something new.
Plus, I'm a web developer myself; if anyone understands the nightmare it would be to code out the strange license exceptions check box, it's me. I hadn't taken that into consideration and it's one of the most legitimate reasons I can think of.
I think I like 'Open-BY' of the suggestions so far.
Regarding NT by, what does non-technical refer to?
Good-BY
Couldn't resist.
@pennomi: Honestly, I really only thought of that stuff because I decided to reconsider the idea of a rider, and then started to think about how I might go about implementing it. :)
To me, the name should accomplish the following things, in order of importance:
NT-BY is not intuitive to me. I'm assuming that "non-technical" refers to not having restrictions against technical DRM measures, but that has got to be way down on the list of all the potential meanings of "technical". There's no way that someone unfamiliar with the license is going to guess what it's for based on that name. Someone might guess that it has some relationship to CC-BY, but wouldn't really know what it's about or what it's for or why it exists. Thus, it fails on #1 and #3.
I don't think that the "site-specific" name of OGA-BY would be a problem necessarily, as licenses like zlib and BSD aren't just used for zlib or BSD, and it would give a clear connection to the site (#4) while also standing more generically for "open game art", which is the main purpose of the license. However, it is less intuitive for anyone not already familiar with OGA, so it's not very strong on #1 or #3. I can see why one would want it to be more generic than that, though, since presumably it should also be a good license for other copyrightable works outside of games, in which case Open-BY would be the best so far.
Free-BY misses all of the points except #2, primarily because of the ambiguity between libre and gratis in the English definition of "free". Many people seeing the name would assume it's a noncommercial license like CC-By-NC.
PD-BY misses all of the points except #2 and is also factually incorrect (assuming by PD you mean Public Domain, which this license is not).
Mod-CC-By kinda works on #1 and #2 just with having CC-By in the name. However, to the best of my knowledge, nobody here represents Creative Commons or has the authority to use their name in a license. Plus, there are already like a dozen licenses containing "CC-By" in the name, so there's no need to add one more to the glut.
Open-BY passes the first three with flying colors and somewhat touches on #4. In my opinion, Open-BY is the strongest contender listed thus far.
OGA-BY sounds good to me - and it seems common that licences are named after the organisation/site/product that introduced it.
Free-BY and Open-BY may imply endorsement/creation by the FSF or OSI respectively (Okay, I don't think that organisations should be able to "own" the words "Free" or "Open", but in the context of Free Software and Open Source, these phrases have been created and promoted by those organisations, and it's probably better to be more specific.)
On NT-BY, the licence hasn't just removed the no technological restrictions, it's also removed no legal additional restrictions (so me putting CC BY art on a distribution platform with a TOS saying "you can't redistribute this" is disallowed, just the same as using DRM to achieve that effect; but both would be okay with OGA-BY). Although a lot of discussion here has focused on the DRM aspect, I don't feel that's more important for the name than the bit about legal restrictions. Also I find the negative "non" confusing - I mean, it's CC BY which says "no legal or technological restrictions", whilst this new licence says no "no legal or technological restrictions", i.e., you can apply those restrictions, so it seems odd to name the licence with a negative.
"I just hate to be forced into creating another license."
Although I'd say a waiver is still another licence - in both cases (checkbox or OGA-BY), it's a modification of an existing licence.
I think I'm probably going to just stick with OGA-BY as the name, then. Most of the other names have issues or are kind of awkward, or both.
I'll be setting it up this week along with a faq update about licensing stuff.
Note that I won't be giving OGA-BY any sort of preferential placement on the list of licenses; it'll be right after CC-BY, but before CC0. I'll also make it clear in the FAQ that it's just available as a choice because a lot of people asked for it, and that OGA's positioning on licenses will always be that we have no preference.
Awesome news. This addresses a big question area regarding the use of art.
OGA also sounds fine. CC is tied to an organization, as is GPL/LGPL.
For the record I have added OGA-By as a license everywhere I am allowed. In some cases, of course, derivative works require the permission of other authors as well.
All my stuff has OGA-BY as an option (that I can control anyway)
I've added OGA-By to all of my stuff that's completely original and isn't comissioned. For anyone who I collaborated with you have my permission to add the licence.
I wish there was a bulk way to update all CC-By licenses to OGA-By ones, that will take some time, traditionally which I dont have.