"FLAC remains a little lossy (why is there a slider from 1 to 10 if its lossless?). ... But, it is also lossy, just less. So please stop saying it is lossless, that is just not true."
Everything I've read about FLAC says that it's lossless - do you have a reference for it being lossy? What is the "slider"?
"I also want to point out a 200 MB file isn't much anymore... Even a 500 MB file. We all have crazy fast connections now, even on our damned phones, so why the hate for an uncompressed format?"
One possible issue is for hosting, if there are space or transfer limits or costs(?)
With phones it's not so much a question of how fast the connection is, but download limits - 500MB is a common monthly allowance :) Although I agree this isn't necessarily a huge point, if I was worried about the download size, I'd just download the ogg or mp3 anyway.
Regarding the hassle of conversion, i think that works both ways - if ogg isn't an option, then developers wanting that will have to convert. Though i wouldn't object if both mp3 and ogg were available. And yes, there is the consideration of whether some users wouldn't even be able to play the files just to listen to them.
Providing wav in a zip seems fine to me too, as long as there's also a lossy format one can use to preview/stream the music. I don't know how the size compares to flac though.
If one wants to do editing/processing of a file, then I'd say that's all the more reason to have it in a non-lossy format. If FLAC isn't supported, I agree that you can convert via something like Audacity - and whilst that's an extra step, it seems better than hosting as WAVs (which will mean larger sizes, longer downloads - although wavs would seem fine for short sound samples).
I agree with preferring OGG over MP3 (or FLAC so it can be converted to OGG without extra loss) - many open source game developers will need OGG due to the patent issues, as has been said.
From http://www.desura.com/terms-of-use : "In particular, Desura may use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and perform the Content and other works which are based on them (including by way of adaptation or derivative works) in any form, anywhere, with or without attribution to you"
The problematic point seems the right to create derivatie works, without any indication of adhering to the licences - e.g., this would be incompatible with any use of CC BY, since they could create a derivative work that used a CC BY material, and not give attribution.
Possibly I've misread this, and this is only talking about other kinds of content - in which case, do you have a URL to the terms for anything distributed through Desura?
As it happens I can across this site the other day, there's a lot of good graphics there. A problem though is the licence - it doesn't have a standard one, and it's not clear how compatible this would be with Free/Open Source distribution? It allows commercial and non-commercial use, but there's the clause about how the graphics can't be redistributed elsewhere on their own. It would be fine for use when distributing a game, but might cause a problem for some Linux distribution systems, e.g., the Debian Free Software Guidelines (and the graphics couldn't be uploaded to this site)?
I don't know how people have dealt with these kinds of licences when it comes to making open source games ... I guess another option is to ask the guy if he'd be open to relicensing under say CC BY or CC BY-SA, but that would mean persuading him to allow redistribution of the graphics on other sites.
The licence CC Sampling Plus ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ ) would allow basically what he is asking - but this is I believe considered non-Free for these reasons, and indeed CC have now retired it due to incompatibility problems.
First there's the question of whether using art released under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0" means your game has to be released under a "same or similar licence" (whether a game counts as an "adaption" or a "collection"). This seems to be an undecided area.
But if it does, there is a problem. I would disagree with the bit that says "or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL". The actual legal text refers to "a Creative Commons Compatible License". This is defined in the licence as "a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License".
But here's the problem - http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"! So it does not seem to be true that the GPL - or any licence - can be used.
So if it were true that the CC BY-SA terms applied to a game as a whole, rather than just the artwork file itself, then this wouldn't just prohibit proprietary use, but would also prohibit any open source games using the artwork. The only allowed usage would be if the game as a whole was also released as CC BY-SA, which isn't really suitable for code. I guess one potential workaround would be to release the game binary as CC BY-SA, then release source without art as another licence, but it's a bit awkward (and no use for when you want the source archive to include the data files). To me, CC BY-SA seems a bit of a mess - I don't know if anyone has any references for solutions to this problem?
So I'd be wary of making claims like "You can't use CC BY-SA in proprietary games", because even if it was true, open source use seems to be just as problematic if the licence is read that way. The catch is I guess someone might be more likely to sue someone reusing it for commercial closed source, rather than non-commercial Open Source; also perhaps a court may rule that GPL counts as a compatible licence anyway since it's in the same spirit.
The second issue is to do with making money. You are fine to sell Free/Open Source content, including any derivative works. However some licences require you licence it under a similar term. So supposing you used a CC BY texture in a derivative work ("adaption") that you sold - it would be fine to say that no one can redistribute that derivative work. But if you used a CC BY-SA texture, then your derivative work must also be CC BY-SA. You can sell it - but anyone who buys it can then redistribute it for free.
Trying to use DRM to physically prevent redistribution creates another source of problems - IIRC, some licences have been updated to say you can't do this (e.g., GPL v3).
"My concern is not to DRM or not to DRM - but providing a direct download in my product description to - "Hey! Download the source and don't give us a penny.""
Well yes, that's exactly the point. People writing "copyleft" licences weren't doing it so that they could work for free so you could make money :) It was so that people had to add value to make it worthwhile that people would pay money for it. But there are plenty of licences that do allow use in game that isn't itself under a Free licence. It's just the unfortunate problem with CC BY-SA that we have no idea what it falls under, as I say above :)
Indeed - and in fact, Free or Open Source licences explicitly allow commercial use.
It's unclear if the OP is asking whether you need to release source code to enter the competition (to which the answer is Yes), or whether using art submitted in the competition requires you to release source code?
For the latter question, there's nothing in any Creative Commons license that requires you to release source code.
And also, if it's your code or work, you're free to do whatever you like with it - you own the copyright, so you're not bound by the terms of any licence it's released under (but you can't retroactively stop other people using something you release under the terms of the licence).
>How long does it take to get onto the Ubuntu Software Center?
My experience is it can take quite a while to get on there. One of my games took 2 months in review to get on there. A second of my games has been in review since 5 May, and I'm still waiting.
Once on there, the updates seem to be approved quite a bit quicker (though still a wait, maybe a week or so IIRC).
I'm afraid it doesn't have speech samples, I agree that would be good to have! I don't have the voice acting skills to do them myself, but that would be another example of the kind of media that would be good to add :)
I've thought about adding new features, though not done that so far. There are some minor differences, e.g., ability to properly load/save games, or the on-screen health bars. I've thought about adding more weapons. Another thing I'd like to add is multiplayer support, though this will take some work.
"Using By-SA assets with closed source code is kind of a complex issue, if I remember the various discussions I've seen on it correctly (the question being, in essence, what constitutes a derivative work that needs to also be licensed under By-SA)."
That's not quite right. There is indeed the question as to whether the CC-BY "share alike" applies to the entire work. But even if it does, I don't think there's any requirement for the work to be open source - after all, CC BY SA says absolutely nothing about source code (since it's not intended for that). You could still use with with closed source, but it would have to be freely distributable, and allow people to build derivative works (including commercial use).
"FLAC remains a little lossy (why is there a slider from 1 to 10 if its lossless?). ... But, it is also lossy, just less. So please stop saying it is lossless, that is just not true."
Everything I've read about FLAC says that it's lossless - do you have a reference for it being lossy? What is the "slider"?
"I also want to point out a 200 MB file isn't much anymore... Even a 500 MB file. We all have crazy fast connections now, even on our damned phones, so why the hate for an uncompressed format?"
One possible issue is for hosting, if there are space or transfer limits or costs(?)
With phones it's not so much a question of how fast the connection is, but download limits - 500MB is a common monthly allowance :) Although I agree this isn't necessarily a huge point, if I was worried about the download size, I'd just download the ogg or mp3 anyway.
Regarding the hassle of conversion, i think that works both ways - if ogg isn't an option, then developers wanting that will have to convert. Though i wouldn't object if both mp3 and ogg were available. And yes, there is the consideration of whether some users wouldn't even be able to play the files just to listen to them.
Providing wav in a zip seems fine to me too, as long as there's also a lossy format one can use to preview/stream the music. I don't know how the size compares to flac though.
If one wants to do editing/processing of a file, then I'd say that's all the more reason to have it in a non-lossy format. If FLAC isn't supported, I agree that you can convert via something like Audacity - and whilst that's an extra step, it seems better than hosting as WAVs (which will mean larger sizes, longer downloads - although wavs would seem fine for short sound samples).
I agree with preferring OGG over MP3 (or FLAC so it can be converted to OGG without extra loss) - many open source game developers will need OGG due to the patent issues, as has been said.
ETA: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/audiostudio/techspec lists OGG and FLAV for import/export - though don't know if I'm looking at the wrong program.
From http://www.desura.com/terms-of-use : "In particular, Desura may use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and perform the Content and other works which are based on them (including by way of adaptation or derivative works) in any form, anywhere, with or without attribution to you"
The problematic point seems the right to create derivatie works, without any indication of adhering to the licences - e.g., this would be incompatible with any use of CC BY, since they could create a derivative work that used a CC BY material, and not give attribution.
Possibly I've misread this, and this is only talking about other kinds of content - in which case, do you have a URL to the terms for anything distributed through Desura?
As it happens I can across this site the other day, there's a lot of good graphics there. A problem though is the licence - it doesn't have a standard one, and it's not clear how compatible this would be with Free/Open Source distribution? It allows commercial and non-commercial use, but there's the clause about how the graphics can't be redistributed elsewhere on their own. It would be fine for use when distributing a game, but might cause a problem for some Linux distribution systems, e.g., the Debian Free Software Guidelines (and the graphics couldn't be uploaded to this site)?
I don't know how people have dealt with these kinds of licences when it comes to making open source games ... I guess another option is to ask the guy if he'd be open to relicensing under say CC BY or CC BY-SA, but that would mean persuading him to allow redistribution of the graphics on other sites.
The licence CC Sampling Plus ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ ) would allow basically what he is asking - but this is I believe considered non-Free for these reasons, and indeed CC have now retired it due to incompatibility problems.
Other relevant discussions:
http://forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=394
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00092.html
I think there's a few separate issues:
First there's the question of whether using art released under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0" means your game has to be released under a "same or similar licence" (whether a game counts as an "adaption" or a "collection"). This seems to be an undecided area.
But if it does, there is a problem. I would disagree with the bit that says "or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL". The actual legal text refers to "a Creative Commons Compatible License". This is defined in the licence as "a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License".
But here's the problem - http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"! So it does not seem to be true that the GPL - or any licence - can be used.
So if it were true that the CC BY-SA terms applied to a game as a whole, rather than just the artwork file itself, then this wouldn't just prohibit proprietary use, but would also prohibit any open source games using the artwork. The only allowed usage would be if the game as a whole was also released as CC BY-SA, which isn't really suitable for code. I guess one potential workaround would be to release the game binary as CC BY-SA, then release source without art as another licence, but it's a bit awkward (and no use for when you want the source archive to include the data files). To me, CC BY-SA seems a bit of a mess - I don't know if anyone has any references for solutions to this problem?
So I'd be wary of making claims like "You can't use CC BY-SA in proprietary games", because even if it was true, open source use seems to be just as problematic if the licence is read that way. The catch is I guess someone might be more likely to sue someone reusing it for commercial closed source, rather than non-commercial Open Source; also perhaps a court may rule that GPL counts as a compatible licence anyway since it's in the same spirit.
The second issue is to do with making money. You are fine to sell Free/Open Source content, including any derivative works. However some licences require you licence it under a similar term. So supposing you used a CC BY texture in a derivative work ("adaption") that you sold - it would be fine to say that no one can redistribute that derivative work. But if you used a CC BY-SA texture, then your derivative work must also be CC BY-SA. You can sell it - but anyone who buys it can then redistribute it for free.
Trying to use DRM to physically prevent redistribution creates another source of problems - IIRC, some licences have been updated to say you can't do this (e.g., GPL v3).
"My concern is not to DRM or not to DRM - but providing a direct download in my product description to - "Hey! Download the source and don't give us a penny.""
Well yes, that's exactly the point. People writing "copyleft" licences weren't doing it so that they could work for free so you could make money :) It was so that people had to add value to make it worthwhile that people would pay money for it. But there are plenty of licences that do allow use in game that isn't itself under a Free licence. It's just the unfortunate problem with CC BY-SA that we have no idea what it falls under, as I say above :)
Indeed - and in fact, Free or Open Source licences explicitly allow commercial use.
It's unclear if the OP is asking whether you need to release source code to enter the competition (to which the answer is Yes), or whether using art submitted in the competition requires you to release source code?
For the latter question, there's nothing in any Creative Commons license that requires you to release source code.
And also, if it's your code or work, you're free to do whatever you like with it - you own the copyright, so you're not bound by the terms of any licence it's released under (but you can't retroactively stop other people using something you release under the terms of the licence).
>How long does it take to get onto the Ubuntu Software Center?
My experience is it can take quite a while to get on there. One of my games took 2 months in review to get on there. A second of my games has been in review since 5 May, and I'm still waiting.
Once on there, the updates seem to be approved quite a bit quicker (though still a wait, maybe a week or so IIRC).
I'm afraid it doesn't have speech samples, I agree that would be good to have! I don't have the voice acting skills to do them myself, but that would be another example of the kind of media that would be good to add :)
I've thought about adding new features, though not done that so far. There are some minor differences, e.g., ability to properly load/save games, or the on-screen health bars. I've thought about adding more weapons. Another thing I'd like to add is multiplayer support, though this will take some work.
I'm open to any suggestions of other ideas.
"Using By-SA assets with closed source code is kind of a complex issue, if I remember the various discussions I've seen on it correctly (the question being, in essence, what constitutes a derivative work that needs to also be licensed under By-SA)."
That's not quite right. There is indeed the question as to whether the CC-BY "share alike" applies to the entire work. But even if it does, I don't think there's any requirement for the work to be open source - after all, CC BY SA says absolutely nothing about source code (since it's not intended for that). You could still use with with closed source, but it would have to be freely distributable, and allow people to build derivative works (including commercial use).
Pages