to be recomended against applying CC to software clearly means it is possible and.. as I understood, CC-BY-SA spreading over any remaining bundled parts is possible too :/
A bit more of the same: "Note: Bintray does not accept Creative Commons licenses for packages; these licenses were never meant to be used for software. For more information, please visit the Creative Commons website." - https://bintray.com/docs/usermanual/uploads/uploads_uploads.html (not meant doesnt mean not allowed :/)
That link considering differences between countries is very interesting indeed.
So It seems that, if a developer doesnt attribute a CC0 work (even supperficially) to its author, it is hard to have any problem.
Also, if in the list of credits, one or another is missing (no matter why), there will be hard to have any problems either.
Tho, I believe, if we redistribute a work and say it is of our authorship, without providing proper (or at least supperficial) credits to the real authors of each specific work, that specific situation could be an easily sueable one, as a non attributed work could fall under self attribution.
So, what I actually do, that I think is fair enough and even a good thing, is to create my credits txt file in a "proper credit" mode, for all CC0 content, as specified at the CC-BY rules: with author name, download link, adaptation information and so on. I think is a good way to retribute something to the real authors: recognition. :)
I understand the CC-BY-SA restriction only apply to proprietary projects indie developers that doesnt want to release all (or some part of) their work under any CC license, keeping some of it proprietary what will make the project unique.
Also, I think you can/should only add a license, not change, as ppl that may have already downloaded it will credit you under that old selected license.
For anyone interested, I just found some interesting common sense notions to CC0 (public domain) media, just to be aware of in case someone identifies their property and want to mess with you (and they will be able to).
"Understand "public domain" as the permission to freely use an image without asking permission from the photographer or the illustrator. Thus, the creator of the work will not sue you for violating his/her copyrights. The creator, however, is not responsible for the content of the picture. It is your responsibility to make sure, displaying the image does not violate any other law. That is the essence of public domain images."
I think also, we could prepare several smaller packages with specific licenses for the package, all being used by the same applciation, but still several different packages.
EDIT: also CC-BY-SA dictates all further media generated based on these works, like videos, screenshots, sound music etc.
EDIT: also, what do you think about usage of any CC content on a proprietary closed source application? see previous comments with further thoughts
thats the point, I am just studing how shall I behave/do things, to not have trouble later, and til now CC0 will be my primer choice. And if I find something impressive on CC-BY or OGA-By, I will consider it too but I will re-read both licenses to make it sure I wont mess up later.
I do not intend to live from free assets alone, unless.. they are good enough! and, til now, I am impressed, even with CC0 content!
I consider that if a game becomes very successful using CC content, that would be a great promotion to all such content, and for the license itself btw.
The CC package made available at release time would be re-usable by anyone, may be my project is visually unique (as overall) on the beggining only, but that's ok. I think that is part of deal. Also, if my project gets great acceptance, such package could be even improved further by others that one day I could download it back and see my project looking even better without I even touching it. Becase ppl using that package got inspired and improved on it, and keeping each asset on the same license I will be able to re-use it, as anyone will :).
My current credits line is like this (as was specified at CC site as sufficing atribution):
This work, 'assets/Sounds/Effects/MyRenamedFile.ogg', is a derivative of 'CC0downloadedAndExtractedFile.wav' by Author (usernameOnTheSiteIfDiffersFromAuthor), downloaded from 'https://someUrlWhereYouCanSeeTheUsernameAtLeastAndTheFileOrPackage', used under CC-0. "MyRenamedFile.ogg" is licensed under CC-0 by MyName.
Btw, just thinking it simple, CC0 is already available on internet as CC0, so ppl getting it from my project or somewhere else would make no difference; unless I modify it, but then, according o that wiki, I will be forced to re-share it at least as CC0.
And just thinking more, if I modify it so much that I create something so cool that I would like it to be unique on my project, then I would be messed hehe.. better not even consider using that, may be take some few photographs of your own that looks like what you want, and do the work on that one. Just leave that one for later, and use a placeholder til then.
very cool! I think they can be used as 3D particles, do you think you could provide all the missing top down ones? without it I would have to stretch the image, what is not that hard but I think the original may look better? thanks!
So, my current approach is create and sell my project with my crap media (made within my limited capabilities).
Inform the user (from my very own site) that he/she can download a free package published somewhere with CC-0 adapted content, everything properly named so my hardcoded links will find and use all the CC-0 media. So the game will actually look good. So any game that uses it will look good, because it will be a free package (I expect I can also update it instead of creating a new one, but that "I will?" discover later...)
Can I do it without trouble?
Is there any License Legal Code exerpt that can grant me that? (this humoungous FAQ https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ, may have something, still reading it (it is more readable than lecal code))
Till then I will develop my game under my limited media skills :(. I am sure I am not the only one who doesnt want to have a boss out there..
@Cougarmint
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-...
to be recomended against applying CC to software clearly means it is possible and.. as I understood, CC-BY-SA spreading over any remaining bundled parts is possible too :/
A bit more of the same: "Note: Bintray does not accept Creative Commons licenses for packages; these licenses were never meant to be used for software. For more information, please visit the Creative Commons website." - https://bintray.com/docs/usermanual/uploads/uploads_uploads.html (not meant doesnt mean not allowed :/)
@mdwh +1
That link considering differences between countries is very interesting indeed.
So It seems that, if a developer doesnt attribute a CC0 work (even supperficially) to its author, it is hard to have any problem.
Also, if in the list of credits, one or another is missing (no matter why), there will be hard to have any problems either.
Tho, I believe, if we redistribute a work and say it is of our authorship, without providing proper (or at least supperficial) credits to the real authors of each specific work, that specific situation could be an easily sueable one, as a non attributed work could fall under self attribution.
So, what I actually do, that I think is fair enough and even a good thing, is to create my credits txt file in a "proper credit" mode, for all CC0 content, as specified at the CC-BY rules: with author name, download link, adaptation information and so on. I think is a good way to retribute something to the real authors: recognition. :)
@ulf,
I understand the CC-BY-SA restriction only apply to proprietary projects indie developers that doesnt want to release all (or some part of) their work under any CC license, keeping some of it proprietary what will make the project unique.
Also, I think you can/should only add a license, not change, as ppl that may have already downloaded it will credit you under that old selected license.
EDIT: btw, consider OGA-By :)
For anyone interested, I just found some interesting common sense notions to CC0 (public domain) media, just to be aware of in case someone identifies their property and want to mess with you (and they will be able to).
"Understand "public domain" as the permission to freely use an image without asking permission from the photographer or the illustrator. Thus, the creator of the work will not sue you for violating his/her copyrights. The creator, however, is not responsible for the content of the picture. It is your responsibility to make sure, displaying the image does not violate any other law. That is the essence of public domain images."
http://pixabay.com/en/blog/posts/public-domain-images-what-is-allowed-an...
@Jaden,
the package with that content must be BY or BY-NC (in case there is any NC on it) https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#If_I_create_a_collection_that_inclu...
I think also, we could prepare several smaller packages with specific licenses for the package, all being used by the same applciation, but still several different packages.
EDIT: also CC-BY-SA dictates all further media generated based on these works, like videos, screenshots, sound music etc.
EDIT: also, what do you think about usage of any CC content on a proprietary closed source application? see previous comments with further thoughts
@vipergames,
thats the point, I am just studing how shall I behave/do things, to not have trouble later, and til now CC0 will be my primer choice. And if I find something impressive on CC-BY or OGA-By, I will consider it too but I will re-read both licenses to make it sure I wont mess up later.
I do not intend to live from free assets alone, unless.. they are good enough! and, til now, I am impressed, even with CC0 content!
I consider that if a game becomes very successful using CC content, that would be a great promotion to all such content, and for the license itself btw.
The CC package made available at release time would be re-usable by anyone, may be my project is visually unique (as overall) on the beggining only, but that's ok. I think that is part of deal. Also, if my project gets great acceptance, such package could be even improved further by others that one day I could download it back and see my project looking even better without I even touching it. Becase ppl using that package got inspired and improved on it, and keeping each asset on the same license I will be able to re-use it, as anyone will :).
My current credits line is like this (as was specified at CC site as sufficing atribution):
This work, 'assets/Sounds/Effects/MyRenamedFile.ogg', is a derivative of 'CC0downloadedAndExtractedFile.wav' by Author (usernameOnTheSiteIfDiffersFromAuthor), downloaded from 'https://someUrlWhereYouCanSeeTheUsernameAtLeastAndTheFileOrPackage', used under CC-0. "MyRenamedFile.ogg" is licensed under CC-0 by MyName.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Best_practices_for_attribution
@johndh,
I thought any CC0 were obliged to be redistributed as CC0 at least see here https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offer...
Btw, just thinking it simple, CC0 is already available on internet as CC0, so ppl getting it from my project or somewhere else would make no difference; unless I modify it, but then, according o that wiki, I will be forced to re-share it at least as CC0.
And just thinking more, if I modify it so much that I create something so cool that I would like it to be unique on my project, then I would be messed hehe.. better not even consider using that, may be take some few photographs of your own that looks like what you want, and do the work on that one. Just leave that one for later, and use a placeholder til then.
@Redshrike I new CC-BY had some catch, I am reading OGA-By now thx!
very cool! I think they can be used as 3D particles, do you think you could provide all the missing top down ones? without it I would have to stretch the image, what is not that hard but I think the original may look better? thanks!
So, my current approach is create and sell my project with my crap media (made within my limited capabilities).
Inform the user (from my very own site) that he/she can download a free package published somewhere with CC-0 adapted content, everything properly named so my hardcoded links will find and use all the CC-0 media. So the game will actually look good. So any game that uses it will look good, because it will be a free package (I expect I can also update it instead of creating a new one, but that "I will?" discover later...)
Can I do it without trouble?
Is there any License Legal Code exerpt that can grant me that? (this humoungous FAQ https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ, may have something, still reading it (it is more readable than lecal code))
Till then I will develop my game under my limited media skills :(. I am sure I am not the only one who doesnt want to have a boss out there..
Pages