Note that the zip contains a license.txt with a different licence (Common Public License Version 1.0) to CC BY 3.0, this should probably be removed (or listed as a dual licence option) to avoid confusion.
It's a misleading example, as Java can do one line initialisation:
Vector v = Arrays.asList( new char[]{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'} );
And Vector is ancient; these days you'd write it as:
List<char[]> v = Arrays.asList( new char[]{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'} );
It's still not quite as quick as Python, but it isn't the long winded mess as suggested in the example.
Whilst Java also requires extra additional lines for the class and function, "how much boilerplate code you need to get started" isn't that great a method of comparing languages - by this reasoning, BASIC comes out great for hello world :) When you have a large codebase, the extra lines from things like functions aren't significant, and also how well the code can be structured is more important than a pure number of lines count.
It's also about choosing the right tool for the job - languages like Python, Perl, Lua etc are great for producing code quickly with minimal code; they also come with useful types that are built into the language rather than being classes written in that language. So they're especially useful for things like scripting and prototyping. But that doesn't mean they're better for everything.
There aren't any such "Free" licences (by definition - such a licence wouldn't be considered "Free" or "Open"), and so none on this site that would allow this.
Creative Commons did once have such a licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling/1.0/ (which allowed commercial or non-commercial use but only for creative transformations); also https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ (which also permitted verbatim redistribution but only for non-commercial use). Creative Commons no longer recommend their usage (reasons given "Not compatible with any other CC license, inadequate demand").
One way to look at it though - if you're happy for people to use your work, does it matter if people also sell copies? Either they're adding value (e.g., consider how many Linux CDs have been sold with magazines), or they're not (in which case people can just as well download from here). There is also the problem that with games it can be unclear if something has been sufficiently transformed (e.g., suppose a model is being used in the game, but the 3D model is stored as a file without changes in the distributable archive).
Screenshots are an interesting issue - the licence and copyright status of screenshots of games tends to be unclear, and I can see a developer might release their screenshots under a free licence without realising the consequences.
OTOH, what is the point of free licences, if we fear it's unethical to do what the person has told us we can do? There are not "Free licences" and "Free licences for things that can be used in games". In this case it's probably a Good Thing to ask to make sure they understand the implications, but I don't think anything is unethical by doing what has been permitted, and plenty of Free art/music may be useful in things other than what the original authors may have had in mind (incorrect licensing OTOH - including by the authors themselves - I would argue is unethical).
Note that it's not true that Wikipedia requires images with a free license - there are many exceptions, including Fair Use (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hellenicphalanx.JPG ). Also there may be other reasons for not releasing sprite sheets, e.g., it takes extra effort for them to release assets separately, or also, they may have decided that extracting from screenshots is of far lesser value that they don't really care (so I can crop a few still graphics from those screenshots, great - it's a far cry from the full animated set of sprites). It's not like one can recreate the game or anything near it with some screenshots. Judging by their FB response, it seems they don't consider the screenshots to be of significant value for creating other games. I don't think anything is obvious.
I think asking them is a good idea, and if they say no, it fits with the rule that people can ask for media to be removed (even if it's legally allowed here). But if they care about that, it would also be worthwhile telling them that they shouldn't be using CC-BY-SA as a licence, as even if it's not on OGA, there's nothing stopping people making derivative works from the screenshots as hosted elsewhere such as Wikipedia. (They might want to consider CC BY ND.)
Regarding the debate on whether asking people in advance of uploading if you're not the author should be recommended or required, some related threads are http://opengameart.org/comment/37964 and http://opengameart.org/comment/38365 . There is also the question of how "own works" applies to derivative works (e.g., if I create a 3D model using a Free texture from elsewhere).
I don't think trying to claim what is ethical or unethical is helpful though. Admins should do what they think is best for the site (whether that's doing things on a case by case basis - "we should get explicit permission for this one" - or making a change to the FAQ or rules).
These are as much derivative works of trollface, as the original trollface is a derivative work of the Joker imo...
It's a difficult issue - on the one hand we want to be helpful to game developers (even if a copyright claim is downright dubious, that doesn't stop you being sued, and most individual developers aren't in a position to fight that). OTOH if there's too much of this, there becomes a chilling effect. In the case of Porcupop at least, it seems this was intended as a derivative work ( https://plus.google.com/app/basic/+KerriCoombs/posts?cbp=dsh5o7im1b4s&sv... ).
Good to see the Open Game Art reference in the article :) I'm glad they point out that trollface isn't in here. It's unclear from the article if he's going after copies of his image (such as the t-shirt displayed article) or derivative works (the money examples is an obvious traceover); or whether he's claiming to own copyright over any face with a big grin (e.g., the Deadpool comic which just shows a grin).
I love how sending hate mail to people, hoping them to be mutilated and blinded, is described as "what a person believes" (and then you act surprised when said people don't want your game).
This thread probably should be frozen (though I'm tempted to say not deleted, I'm all for seeing someone's true colours).
Whilst a debate on racial slurs in general is all very interesting, this is off-topic for this site, and as Demetrius says, not allowed on the OGA forums unless it relates to copyright, CC and/or FOSS.
Regarding the previous banned example - when you say "anti-social-justice/anti-feminist opinion", let's be clear here: the person in question had sent this hateful email direct to the Debian Women mailing list: https://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2005/06/msg00235.html (follow the links posted above).
Now yes, in theory a project should be able to accept software purely on the merits of the software, independent of how much an arsehole the author may or may not be. But sorry, he writes this bunch of hate towards Debian, and then whines that they don't accept his software? He advocates that women should have no rights (along with a suggesting that they seriously injure themselves), and then complains about his right to have software distributed through Debian? Yeah, I've got the World's Smallest Violin here for that.
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.
I have no idea what bearing that has to your project. I agree it's not a good thing to refuse a project without any reason given. Do you have no idea at all? Or is there some previous history? I mean, if you had no idea at all, I'm curious what you're writing all this extra stuff about "SJW" and feminists...
But my description of "a 2D platform game where you have to collect items" covers an entire genre which has included countless commercial games. Another example would be the commonly used term "Doom clone" - these days we call the genre FPS, but the term "Doom clone" never implied these were infringing any copyright, just that Doom was the most well known example, and people would know what you meant by saying a game was like Doom.
I don't see anyone suggesting to create a "cheap knock-off" that infringes copyright.
Whilst patents can cover things including rules and mechanics, I'm not aware of a patent that covers the platform game genre. Also note that software patents are only enforcable in some countries.
Note that the zip contains a license.txt with a different licence (Common Public License Version 1.0) to CC BY 3.0, this should probably be removed (or listed as a dual licence option) to avoid confusion.
Attribution should be given: http://developer.android.com/distribute/tools/promote/brand.html#brand-a...
It's a misleading example, as Java can do one line initialisation:
Vector v = Arrays.asList( new char[]{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'} );
And Vector is ancient; these days you'd write it as:
List<char[]> v = Arrays.asList( new char[]{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'} );
It's still not quite as quick as Python, but it isn't the long winded mess as suggested in the example.
Whilst Java also requires extra additional lines for the class and function, "how much boilerplate code you need to get started" isn't that great a method of comparing languages - by this reasoning, BASIC comes out great for hello world :) When you have a large codebase, the extra lines from things like functions aren't significant, and also how well the code can be structured is more important than a pure number of lines count.
It's also about choosing the right tool for the job - languages like Python, Perl, Lua etc are great for producing code quickly with minimal code; they also come with useful types that are built into the language rather than being classes written in that language. So they're especially useful for things like scripting and prototyping. But that doesn't mean they're better for everything.
There aren't any such "Free" licences (by definition - such a licence wouldn't be considered "Free" or "Open"), and so none on this site that would allow this.
Creative Commons did once have such a licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling/1.0/ (which allowed commercial or non-commercial use but only for creative transformations); also https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ (which also permitted verbatim redistribution but only for non-commercial use). Creative Commons no longer recommend their usage (reasons given "Not compatible with any other CC license, inadequate demand").
One way to look at it though - if you're happy for people to use your work, does it matter if people also sell copies? Either they're adding value (e.g., consider how many Linux CDs have been sold with magazines), or they're not (in which case people can just as well download from here). There is also the problem that with games it can be unclear if something has been sufficiently transformed (e.g., suppose a model is being used in the game, but the 3D model is stored as a file without changes in the distributable archive).
Screenshots are an interesting issue - the licence and copyright status of screenshots of games tends to be unclear, and I can see a developer might release their screenshots under a free licence without realising the consequences.
OTOH, what is the point of free licences, if we fear it's unethical to do what the person has told us we can do? There are not "Free licences" and "Free licences for things that can be used in games". In this case it's probably a Good Thing to ask to make sure they understand the implications, but I don't think anything is unethical by doing what has been permitted, and plenty of Free art/music may be useful in things other than what the original authors may have had in mind (incorrect licensing OTOH - including by the authors themselves - I would argue is unethical).
Note that it's not true that Wikipedia requires images with a free license - there are many exceptions, including Fair Use (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hellenicphalanx.JPG ). Also there may be other reasons for not releasing sprite sheets, e.g., it takes extra effort for them to release assets separately, or also, they may have decided that extracting from screenshots is of far lesser value that they don't really care (so I can crop a few still graphics from those screenshots, great - it's a far cry from the full animated set of sprites). It's not like one can recreate the game or anything near it with some screenshots. Judging by their FB response, it seems they don't consider the screenshots to be of significant value for creating other games. I don't think anything is obvious.
I think asking them is a good idea, and if they say no, it fits with the rule that people can ask for media to be removed (even if it's legally allowed here). But if they care about that, it would also be worthwhile telling them that they shouldn't be using CC-BY-SA as a licence, as even if it's not on OGA, there's nothing stopping people making derivative works from the screenshots as hosted elsewhere such as Wikipedia. (They might want to consider CC BY ND.)
Regarding the debate on whether asking people in advance of uploading if you're not the author should be recommended or required, some related threads are http://opengameart.org/comment/37964 and http://opengameart.org/comment/38365 . There is also the question of how "own works" applies to derivative works (e.g., if I create a 3D model using a Free texture from elsewhere).
I don't think trying to claim what is ethical or unethical is helpful though. Admins should do what they think is best for the site (whether that's doing things on a case by case basis - "we should get explicit permission for this one" - or making a change to the FAQ or rules).
These are as much derivative works of trollface, as the original trollface is a derivative work of the Joker imo...
It's a difficult issue - on the one hand we want to be helpful to game developers (even if a copyright claim is downright dubious, that doesn't stop you being sued, and most individual developers aren't in a position to fight that). OTOH if there's too much of this, there becomes a chilling effect. In the case of Porcupop at least, it seems this was intended as a derivative work ( https://plus.google.com/app/basic/+KerriCoombs/posts?cbp=dsh5o7im1b4s&sv... ).
Good to see the Open Game Art reference in the article :) I'm glad they point out that trollface isn't in here. It's unclear from the article if he's going after copies of his image (such as the t-shirt displayed article) or derivative works (the money examples is an obvious traceover); or whether he's claiming to own copyright over any face with a big grin (e.g., the Deadpool comic which just shows a grin).
I love how sending hate mail to people, hoping them to be mutilated and blinded, is described as "what a person believes" (and then you act surprised when said people don't want your game).
This thread probably should be frozen (though I'm tempted to say not deleted, I'm all for seeing someone's true colours).
Oh, I see ChaosEsqueAnthology is by MikeeUSA. So my comments above apply to this too.
My only question now is - are you MikeeUSA?
Whilst a debate on racial slurs in general is all very interesting, this is off-topic for this site, and as Demetrius says, not allowed on the OGA forums unless it relates to copyright, CC and/or FOSS.
Regarding the previous banned example - when you say "anti-social-justice/anti-feminist opinion", let's be clear here: the person in question had sent this hateful email direct to the Debian Women mailing list: https://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2005/06/msg00235.html (follow the links posted above).
Now yes, in theory a project should be able to accept software purely on the merits of the software, independent of how much an arsehole the author may or may not be. But sorry, he writes this bunch of hate towards Debian, and then whines that they don't accept his software? He advocates that women should have no rights (along with a suggesting that they seriously injure themselves), and then complains about his right to have software distributed through Debian? Yeah, I've got the World's Smallest Violin here for that.
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.
I have no idea what bearing that has to your project. I agree it's not a good thing to refuse a project without any reason given. Do you have no idea at all? Or is there some previous history? I mean, if you had no idea at all, I'm curious what you're writing all this extra stuff about "SJW" and feminists...
Regarding the reason for "Debian Women", its purpose is given at https://lists.debian.org/debian-women/ .
> "It makes no difference"
But my description of "a 2D platform game where you have to collect items" covers an entire genre which has included countless commercial games. Another example would be the commonly used term "Doom clone" - these days we call the genre FPS, but the term "Doom clone" never implied these were infringing any copyright, just that Doom was the most well known example, and people would know what you meant by saying a game was like Doom.
I don't see anyone suggesting to create a "cheap knock-off" that infringes copyright.
Whilst patents can cover things including rules and mechanics, I'm not aware of a patent that covers the platform game genre. Also note that software patents are only enforcable in some countries.
Pages