Both of these sound like great updates, sweet! Right now my collections are just for storing things I want to use, so I'll have to reorganize it later for things I am using once I get that far. I like the Copyright/Attribution Notice update, as well.
This is pure awesome. The style is very dark and gritty, which is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a user or friends list at this time, though... hmm... Could be interesting for future usage. I'll definitely keep my on on this, and perhaps I can tweak it to do something different but using the same style.
Ah, Drupal. I've heard its very good but complicated to work with. I'd probably be able to get into it easier but I myself have not worked with it yet. I am interested in working in it, though, so I'd love to work with it given the opportunity.
As a Web Developer myself I'd be more than happy to jump in and help once and a while if OGA ends up open sourced. I have a lot of stuff going on, but I'd like to help clean some things up around here as this is a great site. I haven't been provide much to the site as of yet anyway... I'm not quite sure what the site is run on, though, but I do know a wide variety of web development technologies.
Well, I'm planning to do some more LPC hairstyles soon...
"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.
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).
How did I miss this? This stuff looks great. I'm planning to make a darker game design overall (I'll probably use LPC sprites) and I like the dark look of these UI elements. I think that these would be perfect for my Kuhraiy games (at least the earlier ones). I'll try them out once I get far enough to build the HUB out!
Its really not hard to find online at all. GPL makes it very clear that anything you use a GPL asset in, whether it be some code or an actual asset (code snippets are considered to short to be warranted for usage in GPL, although you could license them as such) must be used in a free (open source) application.
CC-BY (including -SA) says nothing about source code whatsoever and everywhere I've looked indicates that source code has nothing to do with derivatives. Derivatives are only created by altering the individual asset itself or extending it in such a way that an asset directly relies on it. People are constantly assuming that derivatives are much broader than they really are.
e.g. You can make magic animations that could work with LPC characters but could work with other things as well. That's not a derivative and doesn't need to be released under the same license, although it COULD be used with LPC if you really wanted to. If you took an LPC magic animation and updated it to create a new one, that is a derivative.
At the same time, people shouldn't use a license if they don't understand exactly what it entails. Personally I think it makes itself very clear. What does source code have to do with using LPC sprites in it? You can use literally anything with source code.
If you want to force an asset to be used in free/open source applications (the application can still be paid, it just must be open source; which notably an HTML5 application would be no matter what anyway), you should just use GPL, not CC-BY-SA.
EDIT: There are questions as to what would count as a derivative and what wouldn't, but not really when it comes to differentiating between source code and assets used in a game. This is really when it comes to "is this asset a derivative of another asset or no?"
This can even come in the form of source code, but only making derivatives of the source code directly. For example, you've got an open source application. You write an extension for that open source application, but the extension could possibly be used in something else and is not necessarily directly tied to that application. This is where it becomes questionable if its a derivative or not.
This could come in the form of assets, too. Creating sprites that work with LPC, and perhaps even look similar to LPC, but aren't necessarily tied directly to LPC and could be used elsewhere. Most people just consider it LPC and must be CC-BY-SA, but its questionable if that's the case.
I found examples like this online, but I barely found anything related to using free assets in commercial games, and when I did find something, it all indicated that source code and assets are counted separately and can be licensed separately.
Ninja'd. I was writing a reply and Will beat me to it.
I wasn't talking about fonts at all, I was only talking about palettes for regular graphics. Fonts are vectors; the ability to change the color and freely resize them is built into them and completely misses the point of what I was trying to say.
Granted, sometimes fonts have static colors in them. If a font has a static color and you edit it so that the color is dynamic (e.g. can be changed in the software you're using) that WOULD be a derivative, as that'd be adding a feature the original font did not have.
I wouldn't even consider recolors an option at all for displaying as a separate entry. If I made a good recolor I'd share it on my personal blogs/sites, or maybe I'd post a comment on the original entry saying I think this is a good look.
When you create a derivative, you own that derivative and you can re-license said derivative however you want as long as it doesn't conflict with the license of the original asset. For example, CC-BY-SA forces derivative assets to be released under CC-BY-SA. You can add other licenses if you wish (as long as they don't conflict with CC-BY-SA), but CC-BY-SA must always be added.
There's a nice variety here, I like it. Might use one of the styles later, though I'm not sure just yet.
Both of these sound like great updates, sweet! Right now my collections are just for storing things I want to use, so I'll have to reorganize it later for things I am using once I get that far. I like the Copyright/Attribution Notice update, as well.
This is pure awesome. The style is very dark and gritty, which is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a user or friends list at this time, though... hmm... Could be interesting for future usage. I'll definitely keep my on on this, and perhaps I can tweak it to do something different but using the same style.
Ah, Drupal. I've heard its very good but complicated to work with. I'd probably be able to get into it easier but I myself have not worked with it yet. I am interested in working in it, though, so I'd love to work with it given the opportunity.
As a Web Developer myself I'd be more than happy to jump in and help once and a while if OGA ends up open sourced. I have a lot of stuff going on, but I'd like to help clean some things up around here as this is a great site. I haven't been provide much to the site as of yet anyway... I'm not quite sure what the site is run on, though, but I do know a wide variety of web development technologies.
Well, I'm planning to do some more LPC hairstyles soon...
"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.
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).
How did I miss this? This stuff looks great. I'm planning to make a darker game design overall (I'll probably use LPC sprites) and I like the dark look of these UI elements. I think that these would be perfect for my Kuhraiy games (at least the earlier ones). I'll try them out once I get far enough to build the HUB out!
Its really not hard to find online at all. GPL makes it very clear that anything you use a GPL asset in, whether it be some code or an actual asset (code snippets are considered to short to be warranted for usage in GPL, although you could license them as such) must be used in a free (open source) application.
CC-BY (including -SA) says nothing about source code whatsoever and everywhere I've looked indicates that source code has nothing to do with derivatives. Derivatives are only created by altering the individual asset itself or extending it in such a way that an asset directly relies on it. People are constantly assuming that derivatives are much broader than they really are.
e.g. You can make magic animations that could work with LPC characters but could work with other things as well. That's not a derivative and doesn't need to be released under the same license, although it COULD be used with LPC if you really wanted to. If you took an LPC magic animation and updated it to create a new one, that is a derivative.
At the same time, people shouldn't use a license if they don't understand exactly what it entails. Personally I think it makes itself very clear. What does source code have to do with using LPC sprites in it? You can use literally anything with source code.
If you want to force an asset to be used in free/open source applications (the application can still be paid, it just must be open source; which notably an HTML5 application would be no matter what anyway), you should just use GPL, not CC-BY-SA.
EDIT: There are questions as to what would count as a derivative and what wouldn't, but not really when it comes to differentiating between source code and assets used in a game. This is really when it comes to "is this asset a derivative of another asset or no?"
This can even come in the form of source code, but only making derivatives of the source code directly. For example, you've got an open source application. You write an extension for that open source application, but the extension could possibly be used in something else and is not necessarily directly tied to that application. This is where it becomes questionable if its a derivative or not.
This could come in the form of assets, too. Creating sprites that work with LPC, and perhaps even look similar to LPC, but aren't necessarily tied directly to LPC and could be used elsewhere. Most people just consider it LPC and must be CC-BY-SA, but its questionable if that's the case.
I found examples like this online, but I barely found anything related to using free assets in commercial games, and when I did find something, it all indicated that source code and assets are counted separately and can be licensed separately.
Ninja'd. I was writing a reply and Will beat me to it.
I wasn't talking about fonts at all, I was only talking about palettes for regular graphics. Fonts are vectors; the ability to change the color and freely resize them is built into them and completely misses the point of what I was trying to say.
Granted, sometimes fonts have static colors in them. If a font has a static color and you edit it so that the color is dynamic (e.g. can be changed in the software you're using) that WOULD be a derivative, as that'd be adding a feature the original font did not have.
I wouldn't even consider recolors an option at all for displaying as a separate entry. If I made a good recolor I'd share it on my personal blogs/sites, or maybe I'd post a comment on the original entry saying I think this is a good look.
When you create a derivative, you own that derivative and you can re-license said derivative however you want as long as it doesn't conflict with the license of the original asset. For example, CC-BY-SA forces derivative assets to be released under CC-BY-SA. You can add other licenses if you wish (as long as they don't conflict with CC-BY-SA), but CC-BY-SA must always be added.
Pages