@MobileGameGraphics: I know you're probably sick of twiddling this submission already, but you might consider dropping a copy of the GPL-3.0 text (available here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) inside the zip file. That way it's plain to anyone who ends up with a copy of the archive how the work is licensed.
Also, and only because you're new, I'll ask if you considered using any of the other OGA supported licenses for this work? GPL can be used for art, but is generally considered tailored for source code and software. The Creative Commons licenses (CC-BY and CC-SA) have been specifically written with artwork in mind. There's also the OGA-BY licenses created by this site to be CC-BY w/o an anti-DRM restriction.
Again, just asking because I see your account is new. If you've already reviewed the licenses and decided GPL-3.0 works best for your work, no problem at all. In fact, I salute you for sharing no matter what the license. Both this and your PixelFantasy submission are top notch stuff!
@Rainbow Design: No one is talking about your posts or saying wikimedia art is never appropriate for OGA.
We're talking about pixel scrapping sprites off screenshots and promo art which the artists themselves have acknowledged was only mistakenly released as CC-BY.
As far as legal vs ethical standards, Clint's already made the point that the goal of OGA is to be BOTH legal AND ethical. Sometimes one sets the higher bar, sometimes the other, here we strive to always meet them both.
Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 13:45
Well, in fairness to Java, every language has it's strength and weaknesses. Simple list instantiation may not be Java's best feature, but I'm sure it has other things going for it.
Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 13:40
because I have to ask, is there a place on scalablegfx where they explicitly spell out the licensing terms for the art there? Clicking around I can only just find lots of statements about how it's all free but nothing concrete like 'licensed as CC-BY' or 'Public Domain', etc.
Anyway, nice pic! With that big needle she looks scarier than a Silent Hill nurse!
Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 08:55
@Evert:
> Why exactly do you want this?
I think the reasoning is pretty simple and understandable. You want to share your work but you don't want to see it shamelessly exploited. It's a real common clause to find in the font world where people frequently make money (or at least try to make money) distributing free fonts. Seems a pretty natural request to me.
re: anti-DRM stuff
Yeah, GPL's thing is you must make the source available, NOT you can only distribute as source. So it's fine to sell or distribute compiled binaries, it's not a problem as long as you make the source available somewhere. I wish CC had a similar idea, you must make derivative work available sans DRM, not you can only distribute sans DRM. As it is, I can't see using CC stuff in a commercial project unless I was exclusively distributing a DRM-free binary myself, as even if you put it out on what is a DRM-free platform today, all those distribution contracts reserve the right to change there end-user terms whenever they like, so there's no saying they might not turn on DRM tomorrow and then you're stuck.
Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 08:03
This is an awesome collection!
Lots of good tracks and a great variety of themes/tones.
Thanks much for sharing! It's very generous of you!
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 23:07
No need to apologize, these are fantastic! Thanks for sharing!
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 20:06
nice! it maybe low-poly, but it does alot with the polys it has!
The little flang on the hilt and the sharp jags on the blade are great!
It's sort of off-kilter enough to look both primitive and evil at the same time, perfect fit for the skull!
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 20:04
yeah this is a great atmospheric track, very lonely and spooky!
@MobileGameGraphics: I know you're probably sick of twiddling this submission already, but you might consider dropping a copy of the GPL-3.0 text (available here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) inside the zip file. That way it's plain to anyone who ends up with a copy of the archive how the work is licensed.
Also, and only because you're new, I'll ask if you considered using any of the other OGA supported licenses for this work? GPL can be used for art, but is generally considered tailored for source code and software. The Creative Commons licenses (CC-BY and CC-SA) have been specifically written with artwork in mind. There's also the OGA-BY licenses created by this site to be CC-BY w/o an anti-DRM restriction.
Again, just asking because I see your account is new. If you've already reviewed the licenses and decided GPL-3.0 works best for your work, no problem at all. In fact, I salute you for sharing no matter what the license. Both this and your PixelFantasy submission are top notch stuff!
@Rainbow Design: No one is talking about your posts or saying wikimedia art is never appropriate for OGA.
We're talking about pixel scrapping sprites off screenshots and promo art which the artists themselves have acknowledged was only mistakenly released as CC-BY.
As far as legal vs ethical standards, Clint's already made the point that the goal of OGA is to be BOTH legal AND ethical. Sometimes one sets the higher bar, sometimes the other, here we strive to always meet them both.
Well, in fairness to Java, every language has it's strength and weaknesses. Simple list instantiation may not be Java's best feature, but I'm sure it has other things going for it.
because I have to ask, is there a place on scalablegfx where they explicitly spell out the licensing terms for the art there? Clicking around I can only just find lots of statements about how it's all free but nothing concrete like 'licensed as CC-BY' or 'Public Domain', etc.
Anyway, nice pic! With that big needle she looks scarier than a Silent Hill nurse!
@Evert:
> Why exactly do you want this?
I think the reasoning is pretty simple and understandable. You want to share your work but you don't want to see it shamelessly exploited. It's a real common clause to find in the font world where people frequently make money (or at least try to make money) distributing free fonts. Seems a pretty natural request to me.
re: anti-DRM stuff
Yeah, GPL's thing is you must make the source available, NOT you can only distribute as source. So it's fine to sell or distribute compiled binaries, it's not a problem as long as you make the source available somewhere. I wish CC had a similar idea, you must make derivative work available sans DRM, not you can only distribute sans DRM. As it is, I can't see using CC stuff in a commercial project unless I was exclusively distributing a DRM-free binary myself, as even if you put it out on what is a DRM-free platform today, all those distribution contracts reserve the right to change there end-user terms whenever they like, so there's no saying they might not turn on DRM tomorrow and then you're stuck.
This is an awesome collection!
Lots of good tracks and a great variety of themes/tones.
Thanks much for sharing! It's very generous of you!
No need to apologize, these are fantastic! Thanks for sharing!
nice! it maybe low-poly, but it does alot with the polys it has!
The little flang on the hilt and the sharp jags on the blade are great!
It's sort of off-kilter enough to look both primitive and evil at the same time, perfect fit for the skull!
yeah this is a great atmospheric track, very lonely and spooky!
yeah, that's awesome! Now, what's hiding down in that well? ;)
Pages