To be clear, it was not my intention to get Nikita_Sadkov's submissions removed. I was hoping we could find a way to accomodate those works w/o having submissions whose license boxes did not actually match the work's real license.
Is there honestly no room for an 'Other License' category?
@Clint Bellanger:
> Maybe we can build an updated licensing help page.
Yes, I whole heartedly agree with this idea. I actually think there's plenty of room for improvement without adding any new features (pop ups, etc.) to the site. Just expanding and improving the wording of what's already there. See my other feedback thread: ;)
I actually think the FAQ is a great way to handle supporting BSD, MIT, etc. licenses. Just add the licenses to the available list and then in the FAQ for them put a note that says something like 'These are code-centric licenses included on OGA in order to support art submissions from legacy projects . It is not recomended that you use them for licensing new art.'
ps
as long as I have you ear, I'll point out that each of the flagged submissions also highlight the 'preview is the artwork' issue I've complained about before ;)
I don't think Nikita_Sadkov's trying to 're-license' any of these works, rather he's checked a 'similar' license and then added a blurb in the description stating the actual license.
My concern is that the more entries the site has like this, the less useful a 'search by license' becomes because whatever the results, you've still got to go check the notes of each submission to see if it's not actually some other license.
@mdwh: CC0 almost covers section31's case, the issue is that the works are derived from art licensed under a custom license. The license appears to be pretty liberal, but it is custom so there's no bucket for it to go into on OGA. The best bet for that one is to contact the original author and ask for permission to post here as OGA-BY or CC-BY or something.
yeah, I love the hammer! I like that it's not comically oversized but still looks like it'd hurt alot to get hit by it! It also gives the otherwise very clean, knightly warrior a slightly darker hue, since it is such a primitive and brutal weapon.
I also thought the free hand read ok like it was resting on the end of the hammer handle, but you might try extending the handle just to see if it helps.
If we're not going to add other licenses, or an 'other license' category, can we at least get an addendum to the site faq listing what the acceptable 'license equivalencies' to use are?
Thursday, May 21, 2015 - 05:40
oh yeah, there it is!
they sure do a good job hiding it but at least I know where to look next time, thanks! :)
Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - 11:39
@Julius: Is CC-BY 3.0 the right license for this? The deviant art page just seems to say they are 'free' and the only comment from Pix3M on it was:
Credit appreciated, but I'm not gonna chase people down unless they do something really stupid. Do whatever with it.
This is awesome!! Got a great spooky halloween vibe to it! Thanks much for sharing!
Thursday, May 14, 2015 - 10:59
no worries, looking forward to seeing what you come up with!
as a final note, if you ever want any feedback on a work these forums can be a great place to post it. They're frequented by some very good artists who can also be very generous with their time, especially when it comes to helping out new comers to the medium.
To be clear, it was not my intention to get Nikita_Sadkov's submissions removed. I was hoping we could find a way to accomodate those works w/o having submissions whose license boxes did not actually match the work's real license.
Is there honestly no room for an 'Other License' category?
@Clint Bellanger:
> Maybe we can build an updated licensing help page.
Yes, I whole heartedly agree with this idea. I actually think there's plenty of room for improvement without adding any new features (pop ups, etc.) to the site. Just expanding and improving the wording of what's already there. See my other feedback thread: ;)
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/oga-and-license-faq-updatechanges-0
I actually think the FAQ is a great way to handle supporting BSD, MIT, etc. licenses. Just add the licenses to the available list and then in the FAQ for them put a note that says something like 'These are code-centric licenses included on OGA in order to support art submissions from legacy projects . It is not recomended that you use them for licensing new art.'
ps
as long as I have you ear, I'll point out that each of the flagged submissions also highlight the 'preview is the artwork' issue I've complained about before ;)
http://opengameart.org/comment/37058#comment-37058
I don't know what the solution for that is, but I do think these three submissions do a great job of showing why it's an issue.
Well, not to pick on Nikita_Sadkov's posts, but here are three examples for you:
http://opengameart.org/content/ari-feldmans-spritelib
http://opengameart.org/content/blasphemer-assets
http://opengameart.org/content/citadel-images
I don't think Nikita_Sadkov's trying to 're-license' any of these works, rather he's checked a 'similar' license and then added a blurb in the description stating the actual license.
My concern is that the more entries the site has like this, the less useful a 'search by license' becomes because whatever the results, you've still got to go check the notes of each submission to see if it's not actually some other license.
@mdwh: CC0 almost covers section31's case, the issue is that the works are derived from art licensed under a custom license. The license appears to be pretty liberal, but it is custom so there's no bucket for it to go into on OGA. The best bet for that one is to contact the original author and ask for permission to post here as OGA-BY or CC-BY or something.
yeah, I love the hammer! I like that it's not comically oversized but still looks like it'd hurt alot to get hit by it! It also gives the otherwise very clean, knightly warrior a slightly darker hue, since it is such a primitive and brutal weapon.
I also thought the free hand read ok like it was resting on the end of the hammer handle, but you might try extending the handle just to see if it helps.
@all: I would just like to point out that we continue to see 'equivalent license' sumissions.
Most recently, this posting which is listed as CC-BY-SA when it is actually licensed as 'Common Public License'
http://opengameart.org/content/ari-feldmans-spritelib
If we're not going to add other licenses, or an 'other license' category, can we at least get an addendum to the site faq listing what the acceptable 'license equivalencies' to use are?
oh yeah, there it is!
they sure do a good job hiding it but at least I know where to look next time, thanks! :)
@Julius: Is CC-BY 3.0 the right license for this? The deviant art page just seems to say they are 'free' and the only comment from Pix3M on it was:
Credit appreciated, but I'm not gonna chase people down unless they do something really stupid. Do whatever with it.
really cute and the animations are great! I love it! Awesome to another cool female character on OGA!
This is awesome!! Got a great spooky halloween vibe to it! Thanks much for sharing!
no worries, looking forward to seeing what you come up with!
as a final note, if you ever want any feedback on a work these forums can be a great place to post it. They're frequented by some very good artists who can also be very generous with their time, especially when it comes to helping out new comers to the medium.
Pages