"It doesn't seem crystal clear that source code would never be considered part of an adaptation. "
If the source code was distributed together with a CC BY-SA asset, then yes there's the debate about whether it would be counted as part of the addaption. But obviously in that situation the point is moot as the source code is already released. In the case where source code isn't released, I don't see how it could be part of an adaption of what is released? Indeed even if it was part of the adaption, I don't see anything in the licence that compels me to distribute it? (If I modify a CC BY-SA asset but don't distribute it, even though the asset is still under CC BY-SA, I'm not required to distribute it to anyone.)
If that was the case, I feel there'd be a lot more things to worry about - e.g., if I use a paint program or music program to remix a CC BY-SA asset, and release the resultant PNG or MP3, am I also compelled to release all the associated files (e.g., whatever project files are generated by the paint or music programs I'm using)?
The GPL only works this way because the licence explicitly says the source has to be made available too.
"I certainly will move forward thinking that -SA and all GPL licenses would require that I release my source code."
Whether or not games would be covered as derivative works under CC BY SA, in neither case would CC BY SA require you to release source code.
"Overall, my 2 cents is that OGA should only recommend using -SA art in open source games"
Unfortunately it would be problematic for Open Source too, as the game would have to be released as CC BY-SA. Potentially open source authors might have more freedom to dual licence the binary; but if say I had a GPL game that used someone else's code under GPL, it would seem incompatible to relicense that under CC BY-SA (and who knows what it would mean for trying to use both GPL art and CC BY-SA...)
"Popular game distribution networks", I'd suggest just say "game distribution networks". Aside from simplicity/shortening, this is a "peacock term" that risks suggesting we're trying to argue in favour of one side. The developer or artist can judge for themselves how important a given platform or distribution site is.
"may or may not use DRM depending on how a particular game is pacakged (ex. Steam, Google Android). "
For Google Play, DRM is only enabled if the developer wants DRM. The current wording makes it sound like DRM would be enforced if you happened to package the game in a particular way, even if you didn't want it. I'm not aware that Steam is different. I'd suggest scrapping this bit completely unless someone can show DRM might be forced on developers in some cases. A more general point to say instead, for the point of view of artists wanting their art used in games, is that some commercial companies will want to use DRM (and the artist can decide for themselves whether that's what they want or not).
"but do not include entire projects or games which merely use the work in it's original form."
Whilst I would hope this is the case (if not, it makes CC BY-SA useless for most games, commercial or open source), unless we have a reference from creative commons or a legal opinion, I'm not sure this is known?
"'additional restictions' (ie. DRM)"
Possibly pedantic, should be e.g. (DRM is one form of restriction).
It might be worth mentioning that OGA-BY can be relicensed as CC-BY (this is useful for anyone worried about licence compatibility/proliferation, or sticking to more well known licences or those approved by OSI, FSF, Debian, etc).
It's a really good place for hosting projects, as well as providing support for selling, including support for "pay what you want". No upfront costs, and you can choose how much revenue cut they take.
One thing to note is that it doesn't seem to be a place that you can just put something there and get many extra views/downloads - at least mine are extremely low even compared to say my own website, I guess it's not a place that many people visit as users. But nonetheless, it provides a site and payment system for developers to make use of. Also this is something that could change as it grows more popular - and I think the recently launched itch client for people to download is a huge step forward (similar to stream, desura, etc). And I wasn't aware of the forums either, I'll check those out.
"Since mobiles don't always let users browse around the files in package a URL link in your credits or legal screen should be fine, and (hopefully) much easier to do than trying to replicate the work yourself."
This is one of the things I've wondered about. I stick the gpl.txt if required into my archive, but is this sufficient for a device where even though it's in the package, lack of root privileges means the users can't view that...?
I also typically put a link in my apps to a help page which includes the CC URLs and a link to the GPL (but not the full text), but in some cases this is an online web page - I have wondered if this is fine for CC licences at least (the help page is typically included in the archive too, but again, the user generally can't access that on a non-rooted mobile device).
Since writing that post, I've had a hunt around Open Game Art, and replaced a lot more of the graphics - I've released the new version (0.25) (see above for download links).
It's still far from perfect:
* The buildings are still placeholders - rendered with POVRay, but very simple.
* Some sprites (defenders, and the cannon, catapult) are static images rather than animated.
Eclipse works as you describe, I just click a button (well OK, a few buttons, but it's straightforward) and it generates the apk. I imagine the newer android studio is similar.
If you want a game engine, Unity seems to be well used, is free (as in cost), and exports to android.
I don't think there's a way round installing something heavyweight, it's like asking to do windows development without installing the SDK. You can use something else instead, but game engines are still going to be fairly big. (Yes you can make a command line hello world a lot easier, but that's not useful on a platform like android.)
"It doesn't seem crystal clear that source code would never be considered part of an adaptation. "
If the source code was distributed together with a CC BY-SA asset, then yes there's the debate about whether it would be counted as part of the addaption. But obviously in that situation the point is moot as the source code is already released. In the case where source code isn't released, I don't see how it could be part of an adaption of what is released? Indeed even if it was part of the adaption, I don't see anything in the licence that compels me to distribute it? (If I modify a CC BY-SA asset but don't distribute it, even though the asset is still under CC BY-SA, I'm not required to distribute it to anyone.)
If that was the case, I feel there'd be a lot more things to worry about - e.g., if I use a paint program or music program to remix a CC BY-SA asset, and release the resultant PNG or MP3, am I also compelled to release all the associated files (e.g., whatever project files are generated by the paint or music programs I'm using)?
The GPL only works this way because the licence explicitly says the source has to be made available too.
"I certainly will move forward thinking that -SA and all GPL licenses would require that I release my source code."
Whether or not games would be covered as derivative works under CC BY SA, in neither case would CC BY SA require you to release source code.
"Overall, my 2 cents is that OGA should only recommend using -SA art in open source games"
Unfortunately it would be problematic for Open Source too, as the game would have to be released as CC BY-SA. Potentially open source authors might have more freedom to dual licence the binary; but if say I had a GPL game that used someone else's code under GPL, it would seem incompatible to relicense that under CC BY-SA (and who knows what it would mean for trying to use both GPL art and CC BY-SA...)
Just a few minor suggestions:
"Popular game distribution networks", I'd suggest just say "game distribution networks". Aside from simplicity/shortening, this is a "peacock term" that risks suggesting we're trying to argue in favour of one side. The developer or artist can judge for themselves how important a given platform or distribution site is.
"may or may not use DRM depending on how a particular game is pacakged (ex. Steam, Google Android). "
For Google Play, DRM is only enabled if the developer wants DRM. The current wording makes it sound like DRM would be enforced if you happened to package the game in a particular way, even if you didn't want it. I'm not aware that Steam is different. I'd suggest scrapping this bit completely unless someone can show DRM might be forced on developers in some cases. A more general point to say instead, for the point of view of artists wanting their art used in games, is that some commercial companies will want to use DRM (and the artist can decide for themselves whether that's what they want or not).
"but do not include entire projects or games which merely use the work in it's original form."
Whilst I would hope this is the case (if not, it makes CC BY-SA useless for most games, commercial or open source), unless we have a reference from creative commons or a legal opinion, I'm not sure this is known?
"'additional restictions' (ie. DRM)"
Possibly pedantic, should be e.g. (DRM is one form of restriction).
It might be worth mentioning that OGA-BY can be relicensed as CC-BY (this is useful for anyone worried about licence compatibility/proliferation, or sticking to more well known licences or those approved by OSI, FSF, Debian, etc).
I'm at http://mdwh.itch.io .
It's a really good place for hosting projects, as well as providing support for selling, including support for "pay what you want". No upfront costs, and you can choose how much revenue cut they take.
One thing to note is that it doesn't seem to be a place that you can just put something there and get many extra views/downloads - at least mine are extremely low even compared to say my own website, I guess it's not a place that many people visit as users. But nonetheless, it provides a site and payment system for developers to make use of. Also this is something that could change as it grows more popular - and I think the recently launched itch client for people to download is a huge step forward (similar to stream, desura, etc). And I wasn't aware of the forums either, I'll check those out.
"Since mobiles don't always let users browse around the files in package a URL link in your credits or legal screen should be fine, and (hopefully) much easier to do than trying to replicate the work yourself."
This is one of the things I've wondered about. I stick the gpl.txt if required into my archive, but is this sufficient for a device where even though it's in the package, lack of root privileges means the users can't view that...?
I also typically put a link in my apps to a help page which includes the CC URLs and a link to the GPL (but not the full text), but in some cases this is an online web page - I have wondered if this is fine for CC licences at least (the help page is typically included in the archive too, but again, the user generally can't access that on a non-rooted mobile device).
Also see https://musescore.org/en/handbook/soundfont for some handy links to various Soundfonts (SF2).
Version 0.28 is now released! See https://sourceforge.net/p/gigalomania/blog/2015/10/version-028-released/ for more details. I've also updated the first post of this topic so it's more up to date.
Since writing that post, I've had a hunt around Open Game Art, and replaced a lot more of the graphics - I've released the new version (0.25) (see above for download links).
It's still far from perfect:
* The buildings are still placeholders - rendered with POVRay, but very simple.
* Some sprites (defenders, and the cannon, catapult) are static images rather than animated.
But still, looking better than it was! The full list of items used is at http://opengameart.org/content/art-used-in-gigalomania , or also see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/comp_gigalomania.html#licences for the full list. Of particular help were the LPC sprites, and this entry, allowing me to generate a range of animated characters.
Eclipse works as you describe, I just click a button (well OK, a few buttons, but it's straightforward) and it generates the apk. I imagine the newer android studio is similar.
If you want a game engine, Unity seems to be well used, is free (as in cost), and exports to android.
I don't think there's a way round installing something heavyweight, it's like asking to do windows development without installing the SDK. You can use something else instead, but game engines are still going to be fairly big. (Yes you can make a command line hello world a lot easier, but that's not useful on a platform like android.)
Note that Google play doesn't force apps to have DRM.
Pages