@Nikita_Sadkov: Although, I was ribbing congusbongus about the exact definition of 'free', I'm quite sure 'profit-share' doesn't count as 'free' in any sense of the word.
@all: can we get back on topic here, I have a simple request, can we add an 'Other License' option or a few of the more common licenses to the site (BSD, MIT, Zlib??) so art can be submitted under them directly and not via another license with some asterixes and notes explaining why the licenses are really the same thing?
@section31: I don't think anyone means to suggest that you personally have violated the license in anyway.
The question is whether that work can be legally distributed on this site under the terms of one of the license that this site supports.
It does seems that the given license is pretty permissive, but it does have a few stipulations which make it plainly unsuitable for release as CC0. And like I say, trying to 'fit' it into any of the licenses would require both fluency in Japanese and a law degree.
Is there no contact info for the creator of the sprite generator? If you're lucky he/she knows enough english that you can talk to them about allowing the work to be released under OGA-BY or CC-BY, which seem to generally match the author's intent with their custom license.
Yeah, I could see where an 'Other' category could be difficult to police. On the other hand, I'm not sure letting folks submit stuff under like or 'compatible' licenses makes things any easier to police. I mean, then it's not just whether the license is legal and correct for the artwork, you must also worry about whether the actual license 'fits' into the submitted license.
I'm not sure I see where adding other free licenses would make it harder submissions to police. Especially if work is going to be accepted but just relabeled (eg. if BSD is accepted as CC-BY). Again that entails not just making sure the work is available under the stated license, but also running it through the 'matrix of licence equivalences' to see if it's match for the submitted license. I mean, is it somehow easier to police BSD license work when it's submitted as CC-BY with a big blurb about really being BSD in the notes field?
In general, my point is, if someone searches the site for CC-BY (or whatever) work, they should get CC-BY work. Not alot of asterixes and legal discussion. Anything else is just confusing. If you look at the example of the blasphmer assets (http://opengameart.org/content/blasphemer-assets) after all the 'experts' had weighed in (myself included in that list of blowhards ;), there is a user asking if they can legally use the work and under what terms, and of course the answer is 'Should be ok...read the text of BSD license. We are no more lawyers than you.' Who does it serve to have art up on the site under those terms?
So again, my point, if the site is going to accept BSD license work, MIT license work, Zlib license (ZLIB LICENSE!?!?) work, why not just add those licenses to the list of supported licenses? That way, when people submit the work, they can just chose the actual license the work was released under and not write an extra paragraph about how it's really something else but it's ok because they're really the same thing, but do get yourself a lawyer. When people 'police' the work, they can just focus on verifying that the checked license is correct for the work. And finally, when people search the site they can know the results they're getting match the license(s) they checked, and not have to worry about scrutinizing the notes field plus whatever lengthy copyright law argument ensues in the comments field in order to know if the work is usable to them.
Well, sorry if I'm getting intense here. I do appreciate all the work you guys put into the site, I guess I just have a bee in my bonnet about this one for some reason. :)
I would also recommend just looking around this site, there are a lot of great examples of isometric stuff on here. Take a few things and modify them or add a few new pieces to someone's existing isometric set. That's a good way to get started if you are a 'learn by doing' type.
Your portfolio is pretty awesome btw, I love the Night Unicorn, glowing eyes are on it are a nice touch!
yuck, sorry to license police you, but if you don't know who made it or under what terms they released it, then you probably shouldn't post it up here. :(
Honestly, you probably shouldn't use it in your project either for that matter...
There are plenty of good star field backdrops on OGA, here's a few:
@Andrettin: Yeah, that's one way to argue it, but like I say, I've heard it argued the other way also. At the very least, the idea came up during the discussion that lead up to the creation of the OGA-BY license and there was enough uncertainty about 'separate but open' distribution as a satisfactory solution that the OGA-BY license was still created. There were other reasons for creating OGA-BY too, of course, I just mean this idea was discussed and not everyone agreed that it was acceptable way around the anti-DRM clause of the CC-BY license.
@mdwh: I have heard Andriod apps argued both ways with regard to DRM. I would say unless you've had a lawyer go over line of the distribution agreement, I'd assume that the system either has DRM or has the potential to have DRM in the future, or probably imposes some other unacceptable legal restrictions on the work.
So I guess that's why I called it a 'play it safe' list. Basically, rightly or wrongly, I've heard it argued all ways on the other licenses, so my advice would be to steer clear of them for closed source/commercial projects. CC0/Public Domain is pretty widely recognized as ok to do with as you please (although I must admit, I've seen even that debated on these forums ;) and OGA-BY was created with the explicit intent of supporting closed source, commercial projects and distribution on DRM'd platforms. So those two seem safe bets to me.
@Nikita_Sadkov: Although, I was ribbing congusbongus about the exact definition of 'free', I'm quite sure 'profit-share' doesn't count as 'free' in any sense of the word.
@all: can we get back on topic here, I have a simple request, can we add an 'Other License' option or a few of the more common licenses to the site (BSD, MIT, Zlib??) so art can be submitted under them directly and not via another license with some asterixes and notes explaining why the licenses are really the same thing?
these are great! The character sprite in particular is super hot! Got a very good early arcade look to it, love it!
> You can use the art here for any purpose, derive and adapt it in any way, sell it,
> package it, as long as you follow the simple license terms.
Well, sort of...
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/questions-about-licenses
But at the very least, the terms of use are somewhat standardized.
> I am asking if there is any license on your site that fits the circumstances of what I've posted.
I think the answer is no :(
Sorry, I know it is a pain, but licensing stuff is taken very seriously around here.
@section31: I don't think anyone means to suggest that you personally have violated the license in anyway.
The question is whether that work can be legally distributed on this site under the terms of one of the license that this site supports.
It does seems that the given license is pretty permissive, but it does have a few stipulations which make it plainly unsuitable for release as CC0. And like I say, trying to 'fit' it into any of the licenses would require both fluency in Japanese and a law degree.
Is there no contact info for the creator of the sprite generator? If you're lucky he/she knows enough english that you can talk to them about allowing the work to be released under OGA-BY or CC-BY, which seem to generally match the author's intent with their custom license.
@Botanic:
Yeah, I could see where an 'Other' category could be difficult to police. On the other hand, I'm not sure letting folks submit stuff under like or 'compatible' licenses makes things any easier to police. I mean, then it's not just whether the license is legal and correct for the artwork, you must also worry about whether the actual license 'fits' into the submitted license.
I'm not sure I see where adding other free licenses would make it harder submissions to police. Especially if work is going to be accepted but just relabeled (eg. if BSD is accepted as CC-BY). Again that entails not just making sure the work is available under the stated license, but also running it through the 'matrix of licence equivalences' to see if it's match for the submitted license. I mean, is it somehow easier to police BSD license work when it's submitted as CC-BY with a big blurb about really being BSD in the notes field?
In general, my point is, if someone searches the site for CC-BY (or whatever) work, they should get CC-BY work. Not alot of asterixes and legal discussion. Anything else is just confusing. If you look at the example of the blasphmer assets (http://opengameart.org/content/blasphemer-assets) after all the 'experts' had weighed in (myself included in that list of blowhards ;), there is a user asking if they can legally use the work and under what terms, and of course the answer is 'Should be ok...read the text of BSD license. We are no more lawyers than you.' Who does it serve to have art up on the site under those terms?
So again, my point, if the site is going to accept BSD license work, MIT license work, Zlib license (ZLIB LICENSE!?!?) work, why not just add those licenses to the list of supported licenses? That way, when people submit the work, they can just chose the actual license the work was released under and not write an extra paragraph about how it's really something else but it's ok because they're really the same thing, but do get yourself a lawyer. When people 'police' the work, they can just focus on verifying that the checked license is correct for the work. And finally, when people search the site they can know the results they're getting match the license(s) they checked, and not have to worry about scrutinizing the notes field plus whatever lengthy copyright law argument ensues in the comments field in order to know if the work is usable to them.
Well, sorry if I'm getting intense here. I do appreciate all the work you guys put into the site, I guess I just have a bee in my bonnet about this one for some reason. :)
This site actually hosts a bunch of good tutorials for pixel art:
http://opengameart.org/forums/tutorials
http://opengameart.org/content/les-forges-pixel-art-course
Is a particularly good starting point.
I would also recommend just looking around this site, there are a lot of great examples of isometric stuff on here. Take a few things and modify them or add a few new pieces to someone's existing isometric set. That's a good way to get started if you are a 'learn by doing' type.
Your portfolio is pretty awesome btw, I love the Night Unicorn, glowing eyes are on it are a nice touch!
yuck, sorry to license police you, but if you don't know who made it or under what terms they released it, then you probably shouldn't post it up here. :(
Honestly, you probably shouldn't use it in your project either for that matter...
There are plenty of good star field backdrops on OGA, here's a few:
http://opengameart.org/content/seamless-space-stars
http://opengameart.org/content/night-sky-skybox-generator
http://opengameart.org/content/nebulus
http://opengameart.org/content/space-parallax-background
getting an 'invalid zip file' error everytime I try to unzip the latest build (v1.3). :(
@Andrettin: Yeah, that's one way to argue it, but like I say, I've heard it argued the other way also. At the very least, the idea came up during the discussion that lead up to the creation of the OGA-BY license and there was enough uncertainty about 'separate but open' distribution as a satisfactory solution that the OGA-BY license was still created. There were other reasons for creating OGA-BY too, of course, I just mean this idea was discussed and not everyone agreed that it was acceptable way around the anti-DRM clause of the CC-BY license.
@mdwh: I have heard Andriod apps argued both ways with regard to DRM. I would say unless you've had a lawyer go over line of the distribution agreement, I'd assume that the system either has DRM or has the potential to have DRM in the future, or probably imposes some other unacceptable legal restrictions on the work.
So I guess that's why I called it a 'play it safe' list. Basically, rightly or wrongly, I've heard it argued all ways on the other licenses, so my advice would be to steer clear of them for closed source/commercial projects. CC0/Public Domain is pretty widely recognized as ok to do with as you please (although I must admit, I've seen even that debated on these forums ;) and OGA-BY was created with the explicit intent of supporting closed source, commercial projects and distribution on DRM'd platforms. So those two seem safe bets to me.
Pages