I don't know how Flash SWFs work - but if it's simply like a "bundle" or a different file format, I don't think that would be an issue. Otherwise CC licences would be a problem for all sorts of formats (zip files, installer archives, packages like .deb on Debian or .apk on Android).
A key point is "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."
So the problem with DRM is either the user can't get exercise their rights, or doing so would be illegal in some countries.
As long as extracting it isn't covered by this, I don't think it matters that it requires some expertise.
Just to clarify my earlier comment, yep, I agree the UI needs to be updated (including for touchscreen laptops, I found some things fiddly on my Transformer Book) but I meant that the availability of the Qt API for Android means this is an option, albeit still a rather large task, but at least the entire codebase doesn't need to be rewritten in Java (or fiddling with writing your own front ends to native code) :)
I'm still using the classic Qt widgets myself and keep meaning to switch to Qt Quick, my understanding is Qt Quick is the preferred way of doing GUIs now in Qt, whether tablet or not.
I tested Tiled out on my Asus Transformer Book - for touchscreen, the GUI buttons could be larger, and the menu may need some thought especially on Android. Using something like a spinner would be better for things like entering tile/map sizes. But it all seems feasible.
For editing, a touchscreen works really well to quickly paint maps. If I plug in my keyboard dock, I have something that works well with both the UI and to use the touchscreen for painting. It would be good to have some way of scrolling using my touchscreen without using the scrollbars - maybe a two-finger pan gesture? Multitouch zoom would be nice too (especially since it's already supported on a touchpad).
Tiled uses Qt which now supports Android, so porting the code shouldn't be a huge problem. Support for multitouch for dragging and zooming should be easy with Qt too, and would be a useful thing to add for the existing platforms also.
I think the way you've done it is fine. If there's only a user name, put that, but sometimes people will say what name should be used as the credit.
"You don't need to link to the licencing rules"
Not sure if I misunderstand this, but note that the URL of the licence must be included (or else the full text of the licence itself) for CC BY 3.0 (although yes, it doesn't have to be implemented as a link).
Just to say that I love the work you've been uploading, and I have been collecting some of it for my own game, Erebus ( http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ ) (I don't think there's any in the current version, but the next release will have several items you've released on OGA, so many thanks for those). My game also uses a lot of the graphics from FLARE, so having graphics that are compatible in terms of lighting and angle is good for me too, and I imagine any other developers wanting to make isometric games - more compatible assets is a good thing.
Personally I don't have any requirements for FPS, as this can be defined per-graphic (I don't know about FLARE, but it could well be the same - I see that the animation config files each have a "duration" attribute).
I've attached a spritesheet of these in PNG format (I haven't added transparency, just left as the original images). Easy to do on my Asus Transformer Book tablet :)
@William.Thompsonj: I'm not taking sides as such on whether GPL can apply to art, but I'm not convinced by those examples. For examples 1-3, and 5-6, couldn't you have the same examples for code? E.g., a browser that downloads a GPL plugin to display the content, or if I view a generic program thatt reads and inspects a GPL program (e.g., debugging tools).
The fact that a GPL item A can be read by program B doesn't force B to become GPLed - and that is what is intended, whether A is a program or art. This isn't a problem, because the GPL was never meant to cover those examples. The issue is when B is distributed with A (a "covered work").
As you note, the examples apply to CC BY-SA. I don't think people saying the GPL applies to art want it to apply in these examples - they're talking about when an art is redistributed with a game.
For example 4, applying the GPL to art might mean that the entire document must be distributed under the GPL. But isn't this also the case for CC BY-SA? MS Word however certainly doesn't become under the terms of the GPL, because you're not distributing it - just as it doesn't become CC BY-SA, just because you loaded a CC BY-SA image.
If the game is distributed in binary form, I don't see anything in the CC BY-SA licence that suggests one must release source code (either specifically source code, or in general, anything that was used to create the project)?
(I guess if we're uncertain, perhaps it's better to simply say nothing on the matter, which at least is much better than saying something incorrect.)
OGA-BY sounds good to me - and it seems common that licences are named after the organisation/site/product that introduced it.
Free-BY and Open-BY may imply endorsement/creation by the FSF or OSI respectively (Okay, I don't think that organisations should be able to "own" the words "Free" or "Open", but in the context of Free Software and Open Source, these phrases have been created and promoted by those organisations, and it's probably better to be more specific.)
On NT-BY, the licence hasn't just removed the no technological restrictions, it's also removed no legal additional restrictions (so me putting CC BY art on a distribution platform with a TOS saying "you can't redistribute this" is disallowed, just the same as using DRM to achieve that effect; but both would be okay with OGA-BY). Although a lot of discussion here has focused on the DRM aspect, I don't feel that's more important for the name than the bit about legal restrictions. Also I find the negative "non" confusing - I mean, it's CC BY which says "no legal or technological restrictions", whilst this new licence says no "no legal or technological restrictions", i.e., you can apply those restrictions, so it seems odd to name the licence with a negative.
"I just hate to be forced into creating another license."
Although I'd say a waiver is still another licence - in both cases (checkbox or OGA-BY), it's a modification of an existing licence.
I don't know how Flash SWFs work - but if it's simply like a "bundle" or a different file format, I don't think that would be an issue. Otherwise CC licences would be a problem for all sorts of formats (zip files, installer archives, packages like .deb on Debian or .apk on Android).
CC gives some info at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Application_of_effectiv... and http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_use_eff... .
A key point is "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."
So the problem with DRM is either the user can't get exercise their rights, or doing so would be illegal in some countries.
As long as extracting it isn't covered by this, I don't think it matters that it requires some expertise.
Just to clarify my earlier comment, yep, I agree the UI needs to be updated (including for touchscreen laptops, I found some things fiddly on my Transformer Book) but I meant that the availability of the Qt API for Android means this is an option, albeit still a rather large task, but at least the entire codebase doesn't need to be rewritten in Java (or fiddling with writing your own front ends to native code) :)
I'm still using the classic Qt widgets myself and keep meaning to switch to Qt Quick, my understanding is Qt Quick is the preferred way of doing GUIs now in Qt, whether tablet or not.
Larger resolutions than you are after, but may be of interest:
http://opengameart.org/content/orc-flare-sprite-sheets
http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-male-sheets
http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-ladies
I tested Tiled out on my Asus Transformer Book - for touchscreen, the GUI buttons could be larger, and the menu may need some thought especially on Android. Using something like a spinner would be better for things like entering tile/map sizes. But it all seems feasible.
For editing, a touchscreen works really well to quickly paint maps. If I plug in my keyboard dock, I have something that works well with both the UI and to use the touchscreen for painting. It would be good to have some way of scrolling using my touchscreen without using the scrollbars - maybe a two-finger pan gesture? Multitouch zoom would be nice too (especially since it's already supported on a touchpad).
Tiled uses Qt which now supports Android, so porting the code shouldn't be a huge problem. Support for multitouch for dragging and zooming should be easy with Qt too, and would be a useful thing to add for the existing platforms also.
I think the way you've done it is fine. If there's only a user name, put that, but sometimes people will say what name should be used as the credit.
"You don't need to link to the licencing rules"
Not sure if I misunderstand this, but note that the URL of the licence must be included (or else the full text of the licence itself) for CC BY 3.0 (although yes, it doesn't have to be implemented as a link).
Just to say that I love the work you've been uploading, and I have been collecting some of it for my own game, Erebus ( http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ ) (I don't think there's any in the current version, but the next release will have several items you've released on OGA, so many thanks for those). My game also uses a lot of the graphics from FLARE, so having graphics that are compatible in terms of lighting and angle is good for me too, and I imagine any other developers wanting to make isometric games - more compatible assets is a good thing.
http://flarerpg.org/tutorials/isometric_intro/ says that FLARE is 45 degrees around, and 30 degrees down (also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_with_isometric_graphics ).
Personally I don't have any requirements for FPS, as this can be defined per-graphic (I don't know about FLARE, but it could well be the same - I see that the animation config files each have a "duration" attribute).
I've attached a spritesheet of these in PNG format (I haven't added transparency, just left as the original images). Easy to do on my Asus Transformer Book tablet :)
@William.Thompsonj: I'm not taking sides as such on whether GPL can apply to art, but I'm not convinced by those examples. For examples 1-3, and 5-6, couldn't you have the same examples for code? E.g., a browser that downloads a GPL plugin to display the content, or if I view a generic program thatt reads and inspects a GPL program (e.g., debugging tools).
The fact that a GPL item A can be read by program B doesn't force B to become GPLed - and that is what is intended, whether A is a program or art. This isn't a problem, because the GPL was never meant to cover those examples. The issue is when B is distributed with A (a "covered work").
As you note, the examples apply to CC BY-SA. I don't think people saying the GPL applies to art want it to apply in these examples - they're talking about when an art is redistributed with a game.
For example 4, applying the GPL to art might mean that the entire document must be distributed under the GPL. But isn't this also the case for CC BY-SA? MS Word however certainly doesn't become under the terms of the GPL, because you're not distributing it - just as it doesn't become CC BY-SA, just because you loaded a CC BY-SA image.
If the game is distributed in binary form, I don't see anything in the CC BY-SA licence that suggests one must release source code (either specifically source code, or in general, anything that was used to create the project)?
(I guess if we're uncertain, perhaps it's better to simply say nothing on the matter, which at least is much better than saying something incorrect.)
OGA-BY sounds good to me - and it seems common that licences are named after the organisation/site/product that introduced it.
Free-BY and Open-BY may imply endorsement/creation by the FSF or OSI respectively (Okay, I don't think that organisations should be able to "own" the words "Free" or "Open", but in the context of Free Software and Open Source, these phrases have been created and promoted by those organisations, and it's probably better to be more specific.)
On NT-BY, the licence hasn't just removed the no technological restrictions, it's also removed no legal additional restrictions (so me putting CC BY art on a distribution platform with a TOS saying "you can't redistribute this" is disallowed, just the same as using DRM to achieve that effect; but both would be okay with OGA-BY). Although a lot of discussion here has focused on the DRM aspect, I don't feel that's more important for the name than the bit about legal restrictions. Also I find the negative "non" confusing - I mean, it's CC BY which says "no legal or technological restrictions", whilst this new licence says no "no legal or technological restrictions", i.e., you can apply those restrictions, so it seems odd to name the licence with a negative.
"I just hate to be forced into creating another license."
Although I'd say a waiver is still another licence - in both cases (checkbox or OGA-BY), it's a modification of an existing licence.
Pages