The license PDF included in the archive (License Terms Mobile Game Graphics.pdf) does not say anything about the work being GPL and indeed lays out the the same restrictions that were orginally in the 'Copyright/Attribution Notice' field.
The license for the work must be one of the OGA supported licenses w/o any additional clauses or restrictions.
If your intent is to release the work under the terms of GPL 3.0, please update the licensing info included in the archive to reflect that (eg. remove the License Terms Mobile Game Graphics.pdf file and replace it with the GPL-3.0.txt).
If the work is only to be released under the terms of your custom 'Mobile Game Graphics Free License' then it is not suitable for this site.
@mdwh: Yes, I like the idea of borrowing from CC's own language, but think it'd be good to add a real explicit summary to the end also, something like:
CC-BY and CC-SA licenses include a clause prohibiting the use of additional "legal terms or technological measures (DRM) that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits". In practice, this means artwork using this license may not be legally distributed on platforms that use any form of 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM). Note that many popular game distribution networks do use DRM (ie. Apple iOS, Xbox Live, Sony PSN) and others may or may not use DRM depending on how a particular game is pacakged (ex. Steam, Google Android). Please be aware of this restriction when submitting work and/or choosing work to use in a project.
Is that too long? Just figure it won't hurt to really spell out exactly what the clause means.
@Nikita_Sadkov: I would file that one under improper submissions. Aside form any issues those clauses may present for GPL licensing, the goal of OGA (as discussed ad nauseum in the pregenerator to this thread) is for things to be licensed directly and simply under the selected license. I see the author already ammended the submission notes, perhaps they simply forgot to do the same with the license file in the archive, trying pinging them again to fix it and if they still don't, we'll just have to hope a mod takes notice.
I suppose as it pertains to this thread, we could also consider adding langauge to the faq/submission guidelines stating clearly that the work must not contain additional restrictions/license provisions beyond the selected license(s).
@Rainbow Design: I don't know enough about Android development/distibution to really comment on it. All I can say is I have seen the issue whether Play Store and/or Andriod apk's consitute DRM or not debated on these forums. That's why I call it my 'better safe than sorry' advice.
Friday, June 12, 2015 - 03:18
If you're ok with a cut and paste job, here's my thoughts on this one as posted to another recent thread on the topic:
CC-BY license has a prohibition on using 'technilogical measures' to restrict distribution. This is a widely interpretted as a restriction on using CC-BY work on games that are sold/distributed on platforms that require/use DRM. There's alot of debate on what constitutes DRM and which platforms use or don't use DRM, so generally I would advise you to avoid CC-BY works unless you are distributing a DRM-free PC game (eg. a game where you directly distribute a .exe installer yourself either on your own web site or on a DRM-free store like itch.io, etc). But that's my 'better safe than sorry' advise, not everyone agrees with it ;)
CC-SA license shares CC-BY's anti-DRM clause but also requires you to re-share any derivative artwork you make under the same license. I'd encourage you to do this anyway no matter which license the source work uses, it's the best way to say 'thank you' to the artists that posted the original work(s). Note that you don't need to re-share EVERY derivative work you make, the restriction is actually just that IF you distribute derivative work you must do so under the same license. So, if you make derivative work and distribute it as part of your game you must license the derivative artwork as CC-BY. But if you just make some derivative work and keep it on your own hard drive, you don't have to share it.
GPL 2.0/3.0 licenses are also subject a good bit of debate as to what they limit/don't limit you from doing and if they do/don't require you to distribute your game source code. Generally, I would advise you stear clear of them unless you are explicitly making an Open Source game.
OGA-BY is a new license created by this site with the explicit intent of being CC-BY w/o the 'technical measures' clause. So works under this license are generally safe to use so long as you credit the original artist.
CC0 is essentially public domain. Works under this license are absolutely free to use as you please, although it's still a good idea to credit the original artists (unless they explicitly ask not to be credited!)
So my 'better than sorry' summary would be, for commercial work, stick to CC0 and OGA-BY works. For open source stuff, no limits! Again, that's just my opinion on the matter, not everyone agrees.
Great stuff! I really like the idea of combining the tiles to make the interior walls, very nice trick for getting around the perspective problems! Thanks for sharing!
Well, if nothing else it does highlight the importance of making sure that submitters understand the license(s) they are submitting work under. For OGA, I think that just means making some tweaks to the site faq and submission guidelines ;)
eugeneloza hit it pretty well, the idea is for all the art on here to be free to use but there are some caveats:
CC-BY license has a prohibition on using 'technilogical measures' to restrict distribution. This is a widely interpretted as a restriction on using CC-BY work on games that are sold/distributed on platforms that require/use DRM. There's alot of debate on what constitutes DRM and which platforms use or don't use DRM, so generally I would advise you to avoid CC-BY works unless you are distributing a DRM-free PC game (eg. a game where you directly distribute a .exe installer yourself either on your own web site or on a DRM-free store like itch.io, etc). But that's my 'better safe than sorry' advise, not everyone agrees with it ;)
CC-SA license shares CC-BY's anti-DRM clause but also requires you to re-share any derivative artwork you make under the same license. I'd encourage you to do this anyway no matter which license the source work uses, it's the best way to say 'thank you' to the artists that posted the original work(s). Note that you don't need to re-share EVERY derivative work you make, the restriction is actually just that IF you distribute derivative work you must do so under the same license. So, if you make derivative work and distribute it as part of your game you must license the derivative artwork as CC-BY. But if you just make some derivative work and keep it on your own hard drive, you don't have to share it.
GPL 2.0/3.0 licenses are also subject a good bit of debate as to what they limit/don't limit you from doing and if they do/don't require you to distribute your game source code. Generally, I would advise you stear clear of them unless you are explicitly making an Open Source game.
OGA-BY is a new license created by this site with the explicit intent of being CC-BY w/o the 'technical measures' clause. So works under this license are generally safe to use so long as you credit the original artist.
CC0 is essentially public domain. Works under this license are absolutely free to use as you please, although it's still a good idea to credit the original artists (unless they explicitly ask not to be credited!)
So my 'better than sorry' summary would be, for commercial work, stick to CC0 and OGA-BY works. For open source stuff, no limits! Again, that's just my opinion on the matter, not everyone agrees.
Final note, if a work lists two or more licenses, you may choose to use the work under whichever of the listed licenses you prefer. So if the submitter checks OGA-BY and CC0 and GPL, you can choose to use the work under terms of GPL. Or you may choose to use it under the terms of OGA-BY. Or you can choose to use it under the terms of CC0, it's up to you.
Sorry to hear you found the site/submission FAQ confusing on the topic, I have personally started a Feedback forum thread to try and get a few changes to site docs to help clarify common questions/problems with submissions. Any details about which parts you found confusing or info you'd like to see added or how it could be better presented would welcome.
There's pretty strong precedent for games borrowing gameplay ideas and mechanics from one another. As Nikita_Sadkov points out there are a few cases of companies successfully claiming a patent on a particular game mechanic, but historically that's definitely been the exception not the rule.
Honestly, at this point in the history of the game industry, there's very little that's not somehow derivative of something that's come before it. I wouldn't worry at all about borrowing mechanics from Mass Effect. Just about every mechanic you can think of in the game is lifted in some way from earlier titles. It's the setting, story, and characters that make the game unique, plus the particular combination of gameplay elements as well I suppose.
yeah, I think the conversation had moved past adding licenses let alone taking any away.
At this point, I personally am just hoping we can get some updates/clarifications made to the site faq/submission guidelines.
I think I will open a new feedback thread asking for the FAQ/guideline changes outlined above. Hopefully that'll help get the attention of one of the site admins.
And just to show one last time that I am not out to pick on Nikita_Sadkov with this thread, here's another good example of a work submitted under one license but with a different license specified in the notes fields:
The license PDF included in the archive (License Terms Mobile Game Graphics.pdf) does not say anything about the work being GPL and indeed lays out the the same restrictions that were orginally in the 'Copyright/Attribution Notice' field.
The license for the work must be one of the OGA supported licenses w/o any additional clauses or restrictions.
If your intent is to release the work under the terms of GPL 3.0, please update the licensing info included in the archive to reflect that (eg. remove the License Terms Mobile Game Graphics.pdf file and replace it with the GPL-3.0.txt).
If the work is only to be released under the terms of your custom 'Mobile Game Graphics Free License' then it is not suitable for this site.
Same is true of your other submission:
http://opengameart.org/content/pixelantasy
@mdwh: Yes, I like the idea of borrowing from CC's own language, but think it'd be good to add a real explicit summary to the end also, something like:
CC-BY and CC-SA licenses include a clause prohibiting the use of additional "legal terms or technological measures (DRM) that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits". In practice, this means artwork using this license may not be legally distributed on platforms that use any form of 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM). Note that many popular game distribution networks do use DRM (ie. Apple iOS, Xbox Live, Sony PSN) and others may or may not use DRM depending on how a particular game is pacakged (ex. Steam, Google Android). Please be aware of this restriction when submitting work and/or choosing work to use in a project.
Is that too long? Just figure it won't hurt to really spell out exactly what the clause means.
@Nikita_Sadkov: I would file that one under improper submissions. Aside form any issues those clauses may present for GPL licensing, the goal of OGA (as discussed ad nauseum in the pregenerator to this thread) is for things to be licensed directly and simply under the selected license. I see the author already ammended the submission notes, perhaps they simply forgot to do the same with the license file in the archive, trying pinging them again to fix it and if they still don't, we'll just have to hope a mod takes notice.
I suppose as it pertains to this thread, we could also consider adding langauge to the faq/submission guidelines stating clearly that the work must not contain additional restrictions/license provisions beyond the selected license(s).
@Rainbow Design: I don't know enough about Android development/distibution to really comment on it. All I can say is I have seen the issue whether Play Store and/or Andriod apk's consitute DRM or not debated on these forums. That's why I call it my 'better safe than sorry' advice.
If you're ok with a cut and paste job, here's my thoughts on this one as posted to another recent thread on the topic:
CC-BY license has a prohibition on using 'technilogical measures' to restrict distribution. This is a widely interpretted as a restriction on using CC-BY work on games that are sold/distributed on platforms that require/use DRM. There's alot of debate on what constitutes DRM and which platforms use or don't use DRM, so generally I would advise you to avoid CC-BY works unless you are distributing a DRM-free PC game (eg. a game where you directly distribute a .exe installer yourself either on your own web site or on a DRM-free store like itch.io, etc). But that's my 'better safe than sorry' advise, not everyone agrees with it ;)
CC-SA license shares CC-BY's anti-DRM clause but also requires you to re-share any derivative artwork you make under the same license. I'd encourage you to do this anyway no matter which license the source work uses, it's the best way to say 'thank you' to the artists that posted the original work(s). Note that you don't need to re-share EVERY derivative work you make, the restriction is actually just that IF you distribute derivative work you must do so under the same license. So, if you make derivative work and distribute it as part of your game you must license the derivative artwork as CC-BY. But if you just make some derivative work and keep it on your own hard drive, you don't have to share it.
GPL 2.0/3.0 licenses are also subject a good bit of debate as to what they limit/don't limit you from doing and if they do/don't require you to distribute your game source code. Generally, I would advise you stear clear of them unless you are explicitly making an Open Source game.
OGA-BY is a new license created by this site with the explicit intent of being CC-BY w/o the 'technical measures' clause. So works under this license are generally safe to use so long as you credit the original artist.
CC0 is essentially public domain. Works under this license are absolutely free to use as you please, although it's still a good idea to credit the original artists (unless they explicitly ask not to be credited!)
So my 'better than sorry' summary would be, for commercial work, stick to CC0 and OGA-BY works. For open source stuff, no limits! Again, that's just my opinion on the matter, not everyone agrees.
Great stuff! I really like the idea of combining the tiles to make the interior walls, very nice trick for getting around the perspective problems! Thanks for sharing!
Well, if nothing else it does highlight the importance of making sure that submitters understand the license(s) they are submitting work under. For OGA, I think that just means making some tweaks to the site faq and submission guidelines ;)
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
@edragonpein: Welcome aboard!
eugeneloza hit it pretty well, the idea is for all the art on here to be free to use but there are some caveats:
CC-BY license has a prohibition on using 'technilogical measures' to restrict distribution. This is a widely interpretted as a restriction on using CC-BY work on games that are sold/distributed on platforms that require/use DRM. There's alot of debate on what constitutes DRM and which platforms use or don't use DRM, so generally I would advise you to avoid CC-BY works unless you are distributing a DRM-free PC game (eg. a game where you directly distribute a .exe installer yourself either on your own web site or on a DRM-free store like itch.io, etc). But that's my 'better safe than sorry' advise, not everyone agrees with it ;)
CC-SA license shares CC-BY's anti-DRM clause but also requires you to re-share any derivative artwork you make under the same license. I'd encourage you to do this anyway no matter which license the source work uses, it's the best way to say 'thank you' to the artists that posted the original work(s). Note that you don't need to re-share EVERY derivative work you make, the restriction is actually just that IF you distribute derivative work you must do so under the same license. So, if you make derivative work and distribute it as part of your game you must license the derivative artwork as CC-BY. But if you just make some derivative work and keep it on your own hard drive, you don't have to share it.
GPL 2.0/3.0 licenses are also subject a good bit of debate as to what they limit/don't limit you from doing and if they do/don't require you to distribute your game source code. Generally, I would advise you stear clear of them unless you are explicitly making an Open Source game.
OGA-BY is a new license created by this site with the explicit intent of being CC-BY w/o the 'technical measures' clause. So works under this license are generally safe to use so long as you credit the original artist.
CC0 is essentially public domain. Works under this license are absolutely free to use as you please, although it's still a good idea to credit the original artists (unless they explicitly ask not to be credited!)
So my 'better than sorry' summary would be, for commercial work, stick to CC0 and OGA-BY works. For open source stuff, no limits! Again, that's just my opinion on the matter, not everyone agrees.
Final note, if a work lists two or more licenses, you may choose to use the work under whichever of the listed licenses you prefer. So if the submitter checks OGA-BY and CC0 and GPL, you can choose to use the work under terms of GPL. Or you may choose to use it under the terms of OGA-BY. Or you can choose to use it under the terms of CC0, it's up to you.
Sorry to hear you found the site/submission FAQ confusing on the topic, I have personally started a Feedback forum thread to try and get a few changes to site docs to help clarify common questions/problems with submissions. Any details about which parts you found confusing or info you'd like to see added or how it could be better presented would welcome.
ok, guidelines/faq change thread started:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
There's pretty strong precedent for games borrowing gameplay ideas and mechanics from one another. As Nikita_Sadkov points out there are a few cases of companies successfully claiming a patent on a particular game mechanic, but historically that's definitely been the exception not the rule.
Honestly, at this point in the history of the game industry, there's very little that's not somehow derivative of something that's come before it. I wouldn't worry at all about borrowing mechanics from Mass Effect. Just about every mechanic you can think of in the game is lifted in some way from earlier titles. It's the setting, story, and characters that make the game unique, plus the particular combination of gameplay elements as well I suppose.
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_clone
for further reading on the topic.
yeah, I think the conversation had moved past adding licenses let alone taking any away.
At this point, I personally am just hoping we can get some updates/clarifications made to the site faq/submission guidelines.
I think I will open a new feedback thread asking for the FAQ/guideline changes outlined above. Hopefully that'll help get the attention of one of the site admins.
And just to show one last time that I am not out to pick on Nikita_Sadkov with this thread, here's another good example of a work submitted under one license but with a different license specified in the notes fields:
http://opengameart.org/content/night-calm
Pages