This sounds like an "I want people to make my idea".
Bear in mind that these usually don't get much in the way of responses - programmers usually have plenty of their own ideas to develop. If they do look for groups to work with, it'll be where someone else is also doing the development or artwork, or where there's at least a prototype.
MMORPG are one of the most complex games to create - typical budget estimates are in the millions, it's unclear what level of funding you have for the renumeration, hosting and so on...
Unless you have a previous track record, I'd recommend starting (much) simpler :) And if you really have a game idea you want to make real, get stuck in and learn programming (it's fun!) - or you'll need to pay someone to make it.
Preview can also be useful if it's already the exact image you're after - especially for 3D models where I'm after a 2D rendering, if the preview already works, it saves having to set up Blender and render it myself. So I'd really like it so that it is included. And that's how I've been interpreting the licence info - after all, the licence is on the page, not just in the files, and the licence is per submission not per file.
Also consider that in some cases, people might not even bother downloading and looking through the files, if the preview is good enough for their needs.
If the preview isn't under the same licence, then what licence is it under? This would be an issue if someone wanted to make a mirror of the OGA content (after all, one of the benefits of open licences is making it easier to save content even if the original site disappears) - this would be a pain if the previews weren't under any licence that allowed they.
I'd say that things like logos don't belong in previews if you don't want them being open, but I appreciate that it's a pain for submissions like that already uploaded.
That looks fine, though you should also include the URLs of the relevant CC licences (or alternatively include the full licence texts, but URLs are easier).
@capbros What sources argue that Google Play and Steam enforce DRM? I believe the information for enabling DRM for Google Play is at https://developer.android.com/google/play/licensing/index.html . This does not seem to be the kind of thing that one could enable without realising. For Steam, I note there are plenty of articles listing DRM-free games on Steam.
"You must include cc-by/sa assets in a common file format that end user could easily use to open/modify the work themselves if they wanted. I mention this because it is not wholly uncommon for games to re-package assets into their own file format schemes. As an example, for textures, it's not uncommon to have some kind of build step that compresses them into some kind of a raw gl/direct format in order to speed load times. I've also seen plenty of devs that like to bundle all the files for their game into a single file with some kind of zip or otherwise compressed format. Pretty sure distributing cc-by/sa works like this would be violation of the license."
I can't see where in the licences it says this?
There is no requirement AFAIK that the recipient must be able to reconstruct or directly access the original work, otherwise that would be problematic for derivative works (e.g., distributing a rendered image that uses CC BY models or textures doesn't require inclusion of those models or textures in a common format). As you note, repackaging or converting to more suitable formats is common practice for games, so would be problematic.
I can see that argument applying to the GPL, if such things were deemed to be the "source", but CC licences having nothing like that. (Even for the GPL, there's no requirement to bundle all of the source formats with your binary distribution, instead you just have to offer it as a separate download.)
Bundling the files into a single compressed file is certainly allowed. If it wasn't, an awful lot of pages on OGA where files are bundled into a zip would be violating this.
Note, the bit about technical restrictions is specifically defined as "A technological measure is considered an ETM if circumventing it carries penalties under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, or similar international agreements." ( https://creativecommons.org/faq/ ). It's intended to address the problem that even if I'm able to get round DRM, in many countries I'd be breaking the law to do so. But I'm not breaking the law to unzip an zip file - nor does putting it in a zip stop me from redistributing. It's about preserving people's right to allow redistribution, but if the work has been transformed, the originals don't have to be supplied.
The FAQ says "Note that merely converting material into a different format that is difficult to access ... does not violate the restriction".
Unfortuately the question of whether the licence applies to the entire game is unclear for both CC BY SA and the GPL. In practice most people seem to assume that it doesn't (and it would be a right pain, especially for CC BY SA, if this was the case). I don't think it's been tested in court one way or the other.
Distribution on Google Play is fine, Google offer DRM but it is not required. (And DRM certainly isn't an issue for distrbuting Android applications elsewhere.) As far as I know, DRM is optional for Steam too.
"For example, on PC, if you distribute the works along side the executable for your game, they should be stored in a well named file and folder structure and in their native file formats (jpg, png, mp3, etc)."
This can be nice to do, but note there is no legal requirement to structure it in this way. Indeed, converting to alternative formats as required is certainl allowed under all free licence on OGA.
They can already be uploaded (as in PreciousRoy's example).
I'm not sure that having a separate section for code would anything - if the code is generating a particular type of art, then I'd say it's better to put it in the section for that kind of art (2D, 3D, whatever). Lumping them all in a code section takes away that categorisation. If someone is looking for code specifically, that can be handled with the tag "code".
If we're talking about more general code/tools, then I'd agree with the Github suggestion - more generally, there are lots of places that are dedicated to hosting code, and do it much better. For example, it's not even possible to browse the code online for code uploaded to OGA. Also the available set of licences isn't very well suited to code. So I'd be wary of doing more to encourage OGA as a code hosting site without those improvements.
@LDAsh In principle that seems reasonable to me - but I suspect there's the technical issue that it isn't possible, and adding that feature would take time. On the one hand, I'd agree that we wouldn't want a werewolf ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310 ) to set a precedent for undue restrictions. But on the other, I'm not sure that adding this feature to the site is high on the priority list, compared to other things.
My view is similar to what I commented when the same poster brought up the Debian issue 18 months ago ( http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/debian-has-rejected-opensource-game-gi... ) - in theory, there's no need to prevent the user contributing, but if one breaks the rules and/or pisses off the admins of a site (in this case now resorting to legal threats - at least it's a step up from hoping for serious injury!) and as a result you can no longer upload your stuff, I've got the world's smallest violin.
Funnily enough it seems I somewhat predicted this situation: "Imagine if someone sent such an email to Open Game Art? They'd rightly be banned. True, I might suggest we needn't disallow any Free art they'd done if it seemed good, OTOH being banned would prevent such a person uploading it themselves anyway."
"( Here's what ESR had to say about the sourceforge saga you mentioned: esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310 )"
For the record, I generally agree with Eric Raymond - that post is about the removal of Sourceforge projects, which isn't relevant here, and as I say, "I wouldn't advocate removing the art he's submitted on OGA".
But ESR isn't objecting to banning people's accounts, as noted in the comments, he reserves the right to ban people on his own blog. Banning the account doesn't remove the content that's been uploaded under that account.
I'm not going to respond to the rant against feminism because it's against the forum rules to discuss politics.
"Similar platforms, even if they prevent someone from talking on the forum section, do not deep-6 their contributions, void their portfolio, or take any other unreasonable hostile actions."
Depends - Sourceforge banned not only MikeeUSA as a user, but took down the projects he had hosted there as a sole contributor ( http://www.whatwillweuse.com/2009/10/13/not-in-my-neighborhood-mikeeusa-... ). I wouldn't advocate removing the art he's submitted on OGA, but it's not true to say that other sites found a way to only ban him from forums. From a technical point of view, if OGA doesn't have the facility to ban a user without keeping the profile visible, it seems unlikely this will be added anytime soon.
"None of you here in this thread so-far are amongst those people, so please, place the mantel down: it is not yours to hold."
If we're arguing who in this thread has submitted the most art (which seems rather irrelevant anyway to the issue): "Art by chaosesqueteam. This user has not submitted any art."
"MikeeUSA is amongst those people"
MikeeUSA isn't in this thread - unless, you're admitting to being him?
"I have to admit not having access to his previous work on OGA is a loss"
Just to clarify, his uploaded works on OGA are still available (and I agree they should be), and still show up in searches. It's the account pages which can no longer be viewed.
What tools are you expected to use? Creating an isometric game where you can walk and meet people seems fairly advanced for a high school project - though it may be much easier if using a particular game engine or game creation package.
I agree with the other comments that you're not helping him by doing it for him - and that a weekend isn't enough time to be learning this.
This sounds like an "I want people to make my idea".
Bear in mind that these usually don't get much in the way of responses - programmers usually have plenty of their own ideas to develop. If they do look for groups to work with, it'll be where someone else is also doing the development or artwork, or where there's at least a prototype.
MMORPG are one of the most complex games to create - typical budget estimates are in the millions, it's unclear what level of funding you have for the renumeration, hosting and so on...
Unless you have a previous track record, I'd recommend starting (much) simpler :) And if you really have a game idea you want to make real, get stuck in and learn programming (it's fun!) - or you'll need to pay someone to make it.
Preview can also be useful if it's already the exact image you're after - especially for 3D models where I'm after a 2D rendering, if the preview already works, it saves having to set up Blender and render it myself. So I'd really like it so that it is included. And that's how I've been interpreting the licence info - after all, the licence is on the page, not just in the files, and the licence is per submission not per file.
Also consider that in some cases, people might not even bother downloading and looking through the files, if the preview is good enough for their needs.
If the preview isn't under the same licence, then what licence is it under? This would be an issue if someone wanted to make a mirror of the OGA content (after all, one of the benefits of open licences is making it easier to save content even if the original site disappears) - this would be a pain if the previews weren't under any licence that allowed they.
I'd say that things like logos don't belong in previews if you don't want them being open, but I appreciate that it's a pain for submissions like that already uploaded.
That looks fine, though you should also include the URLs of the relevant CC licences (or alternatively include the full licence texts, but URLs are easier).
@capbros What sources argue that Google Play and Steam enforce DRM? I believe the information for enabling DRM for Google Play is at https://developer.android.com/google/play/licensing/index.html . This does not seem to be the kind of thing that one could enable without realising. For Steam, I note there are plenty of articles listing DRM-free games on Steam.
"You must include cc-by/sa assets in a common file format that end user could easily use to open/modify the work themselves if they wanted. I mention this because it is not wholly uncommon for games to re-package assets into their own file format schemes. As an example, for textures, it's not uncommon to have some kind of build step that compresses them into some kind of a raw gl/direct format in order to speed load times. I've also seen plenty of devs that like to bundle all the files for their game into a single file with some kind of zip or otherwise compressed format. Pretty sure distributing cc-by/sa works like this would be violation of the license."
I can't see where in the licences it says this?
There is no requirement AFAIK that the recipient must be able to reconstruct or directly access the original work, otherwise that would be problematic for derivative works (e.g., distributing a rendered image that uses CC BY models or textures doesn't require inclusion of those models or textures in a common format). As you note, repackaging or converting to more suitable formats is common practice for games, so would be problematic.
I can see that argument applying to the GPL, if such things were deemed to be the "source", but CC licences having nothing like that. (Even for the GPL, there's no requirement to bundle all of the source formats with your binary distribution, instead you just have to offer it as a separate download.)
Bundling the files into a single compressed file is certainly allowed. If it wasn't, an awful lot of pages on OGA where files are bundled into a zip would be violating this.
Note, the bit about technical restrictions is specifically defined as "A technological measure is considered an ETM if circumventing it carries penalties under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, or similar international agreements." ( https://creativecommons.org/faq/ ). It's intended to address the problem that even if I'm able to get round DRM, in many countries I'd be breaking the law to do so. But I'm not breaking the law to unzip an zip file - nor does putting it in a zip stop me from redistributing. It's about preserving people's right to allow redistribution, but if the work has been transformed, the originals don't have to be supplied.
The FAQ says "Note that merely converting material into a different format that is difficult to access ... does not violate the restriction".
Unfortuately the question of whether the licence applies to the entire game is unclear for both CC BY SA and the GPL. In practice most people seem to assume that it doesn't (and it would be a right pain, especially for CC BY SA, if this was the case). I don't think it's been tested in court one way or the other.
Distribution on Google Play is fine, Google offer DRM but it is not required. (And DRM certainly isn't an issue for distrbuting Android applications elsewhere.) As far as I know, DRM is optional for Steam too.
"For example, on PC, if you distribute the works along side the executable for your game, they should be stored in a well named file and folder structure and in their native file formats (jpg, png, mp3, etc)."
This can be nice to do, but note there is no legal requirement to structure it in this way. Indeed, converting to alternative formats as required is certainl allowed under all free licence on OGA.
They can already be uploaded (as in PreciousRoy's example).
I'm not sure that having a separate section for code would anything - if the code is generating a particular type of art, then I'd say it's better to put it in the section for that kind of art (2D, 3D, whatever). Lumping them all in a code section takes away that categorisation. If someone is looking for code specifically, that can be handled with the tag "code".
If we're talking about more general code/tools, then I'd agree with the Github suggestion - more generally, there are lots of places that are dedicated to hosting code, and do it much better. For example, it's not even possible to browse the code online for code uploaded to OGA. Also the available set of licences isn't very well suited to code. So I'd be wary of doing more to encourage OGA as a code hosting site without those improvements.
@LDAsh In principle that seems reasonable to me - but I suspect there's the technical issue that it isn't possible, and adding that feature would take time. On the one hand, I'd agree that we wouldn't want a werewolf ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310 ) to set a precedent for undue restrictions. But on the other, I'm not sure that adding this feature to the site is high on the priority list, compared to other things.
My view is similar to what I commented when the same poster brought up the Debian issue 18 months ago ( http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/debian-has-rejected-opensource-game-gi... ) - in theory, there's no need to prevent the user contributing, but if one breaks the rules and/or pisses off the admins of a site (in this case now resorting to legal threats - at least it's a step up from hoping for serious injury!) and as a result you can no longer upload your stuff, I've got the world's smallest violin.
Funnily enough it seems I somewhat predicted this situation: "Imagine if someone sent such an email to Open Game Art? They'd rightly be banned. True, I might suggest we needn't disallow any Free art they'd done if it seemed good, OTOH being banned would prevent such a person uploading it themselves anyway."
"( Here's what ESR had to say about the sourceforge saga you mentioned: esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310 )"
For the record, I generally agree with Eric Raymond - that post is about the removal of Sourceforge projects, which isn't relevant here, and as I say, "I wouldn't advocate removing the art he's submitted on OGA".
But ESR isn't objecting to banning people's accounts, as noted in the comments, he reserves the right to ban people on his own blog. Banning the account doesn't remove the content that's been uploaded under that account.
I'm not going to respond to the rant against feminism because it's against the forum rules to discuss politics.
"Similar platforms, even if they prevent someone from talking on the forum section, do not deep-6 their contributions, void their portfolio, or take any other unreasonable hostile actions."
Depends - Sourceforge banned not only MikeeUSA as a user, but took down the projects he had hosted there as a sole contributor ( http://www.whatwillweuse.com/2009/10/13/not-in-my-neighborhood-mikeeusa-... ). I wouldn't advocate removing the art he's submitted on OGA, but it's not true to say that other sites found a way to only ban him from forums. From a technical point of view, if OGA doesn't have the facility to ban a user without keeping the profile visible, it seems unlikely this will be added anytime soon.
"None of you here in this thread so-far are amongst those people, so please, place the mantel down: it is not yours to hold."
If we're arguing who in this thread has submitted the most art (which seems rather irrelevant anyway to the issue): "Art by chaosesqueteam. This user has not submitted any art."
"MikeeUSA is amongst those people"
MikeeUSA isn't in this thread - unless, you're admitting to being him?
"I have to admit not having access to his previous work on OGA is a loss"
Just to clarify, his uploaded works on OGA are still available (and I agree they should be), and still show up in searches. It's the account pages which can no longer be viewed.
What tools are you expected to use? Creating an isometric game where you can walk and meet people seems fairly advanced for a high school project - though it may be much easier if using a particular game engine or game creation package.
I agree with the other comments that you're not helping him by doing it for him - and that a weekend isn't enough time to be learning this.
Pages