No no, see, I respect and even like them wanting to prevent their work from providing income to some proprietary project. I dont hate them! I myself would like to make such media if I had the skill..
My only concern is to find a way to have a quickstart to my project, I am solely a coder... and I dont want my project look like crap...
I think also that just promoting who created all that media may not be enogth for some ppl, on the other side, if I intended to pay them all, could not rest enough for myself (lol), who said I will be successful?
So basically, I need to be sure, if I can use at least CC-0 without being sued... cuz I may have no money either to pay any lawyer... AND I do NOT want to be forced to release my sorce code, where a small company could grab and create a big project and deal with all that stuff that I cannot alone, what would prevent me from get any income from my work... lead to depression and finally... if I am lucky, enlightment! and utter mind freedom from this world (heh?)
Unfortunately, till now, nobody seems able to make it clear if a indie developer can survive using any "free" media out there.
And this thing that I can sell an open source project... sorry but that makes no sense to me (I know it is wide spread and you are just saying what you read out there), it is like putting hope on something that is not granted at all...
I think I will just giveup on anything CC-BY-SA... and even CC-BY... for my commercial closed source project. Good most assets I got were CC-0!
The CC-0 databases seems the only really safe option for a closed source commercial application of a begginer indie developer.
The CC-0 databases here and in other places seems humoungously enough to keep me calm enough to be able to focus on coding...
The CC-0 licence doesnt have that specific limitation about sounds/music and its synchronization with images (what would actually be a source code in my case), that I almost overlooked...
EDIT: I am obliged to credit all the works, what is important.
EDIT(again): I can re-release everything I modify as CC-0 (not less tho, cannot release it as proprietary, must be at least CC-0), but only all the CC-0 modified content must follow that rule. I can keep my binaries proprietary, my sources closed, and my other created or bought assets proprietary too. (or not?)
The CC-0 legal code is much more readable than others, this time I did not get stunned when reaching half of it!
And... I just expect I am completely right this time? :)
oh I see... only small bits of their images could be used to create a big one, or change it enough, so such new one would not even look like any images they have... you know what.. better not even touch it :), I am already scared enough without GoodTextures hehe :/, unless I am putting it solely on a model or map bundle (what I may never do as I am mainly a coder)...
So, I guess, basically, even if I crop and scale their images, into a new texture, the only way to use them on my project would be to upload them somewhere (like here) under CC-BY-SA (with (A) credit) and force the user to download directly from that place, one by one, even if it was allowed in someway to be a batch download (tho I dont believe it would be allowed without login and so on)... seems unpratical and puts the project under a weak situation where urls may change, site is down and so on...
I felt something was wrong as they restricted the use to model and map bundles. And I sensed, my project would actually feel like a material package. Good this "sense" works where my intellect fails lol.. Good I ran away from it.. and thanks again for clearing that out where I couldnt by myself ! :)
So basically, I could put the royalty free vanilla and modified textures from GoodTextures on a 4th package on my list like this?
4) royalty free textures from GoodTextures.com. A) One or more textures on these maps or 3D-models have been created with images from Goodtextures.com. These images may not be redistributed by default. Please visit www.goodtextures.com for more information.
Despite what they ask us to say (A) is related to a bundle 3D model or Map. In my case, their textures would be available to the whole application use it on models, maps or anything else. So it cannot be considered as a map or 3d model...
And finally I would simply pack it toguether with (1) application binaries and (3) closed artwork, but in this case, (4) would be directly acessible by users with no restrictions by the software, but they would not be allowed to use them without previously visiting and downloading the original from GoodTextures right?
Also, I understand no GoodTextures texture can be mixed (by creating a derivative work) with any CC texture/image. It can only be mixed with textures from GoodTextures to remain under the same "license". I can modify them with tools like gimp tho, following these rules right?
And finally, any video or screenshots that contain views of any GoodTextures textures, must still be, if distributed, under CC-BY-SA, because of the CC textures present on the scene, and also add their statement (A), like in:
"This video/screenshot is licensed under CC-BY-SA. One or more textures on these maps or 3D-models have been created with images from Goodtextures.com. These images may not be redistributed by default. Please visit www.goodtextures.com for more information."
And thanks for taking time to understand it all. I always have a hard time trying to read the licence legal code.
Some places provide a simplified version of the licence. But almost NO place (may be there is some?) simply says how we can and how we cannot use works licenced under their license, with exemplified situations like the one I described. I think most of these talks about licences are to ammend that missing and so important information, that is actually what matters in the end.
@Kaetemi, very interesting, the moment you were explaining, more questions came by, and as I kept reading they were all answered :), thanks!
And, as you quoted about https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s2a4, I just understand that, the user, running the application on his/her machine, is not distributing that dinamically "random" generated media. And so, whatever is "just seen" (but not recorded) on the application, vanishes in void, and cannot fall under any license as there is nothing left after the application closes (only user limited and, to the date, still unrecordable memories). But that is just my reasoning, and may provide a good question at http://programmers.stackexchange.com/
So basically, I have to add something like this on the starting screen and the readme:
"If you are using the CC-BY-SA package (2). If you take screenshots, create any video or even just audio, or any possible other media, out of this running application; if that media is vanilla or even modified/adapted; if that media is distributed; that media distribution must be under CC-BY-SA license, publicly available without any restriction and without any required payment."
*of course, in a case that it may be possible to not depend on package (2). For ex. (2) could, one day, be fully substituted by closed media (not that I want to, I just want to be able to sell my product and live out of it, and promote all ppl that made their work available for free and helped on my quickstart; it is just that I am thinking on how things work).
I think also that a payment can be asked (but not required) to the creation of that media (not distribution); for ex. if someone pays someone else to create a demo video (otherwise that person would not do it for free) with detailed explanations and so on; as soon that video is distributed, it must be freely available under CC-BY-SA, and who paid may require some of their propaganda to show there too. (I am still just thinking also).
I am beggining on all this hassle, sry being harsh, that way you said startled me; thanks for making it more clear (to me at least).
And 1st of all, if I win lottery or alike I will make my project opensource, til then I need it to not have a boss :)
About "the CONTENT that is mixed with the SA", so basically, how you see we indie devs should licence the commercial (non freely distributable) project we create, this way?
1) Binary executables: copyrighted closed source.
Requires a payment.
2) CC-0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA art work media/assets (and all the ones I modified/adapted too, derived work): all these works will be packaged together in a single package file, made available publicly (downloadable) without any costs, and released under CC-BY-SA.
Free.
3) assets I create (or hire ppl to create) from photographs, recordings and so on..: packaged with a key; cannot be extracted and freely distributed (or modified and distributed), without prior written permission; is what makes my application unique, so I understand I must protect it.
Requires payment (distributed together with (1) tho).
PS.: Those executables (1) depend on package (3) and could not depend on package (2). I could create default fallbacks, so, without package (2), the game would look like in development mode. So after the user buy the product, he/she would still be required to download the CC-BY-SA asset pack (2) for free (as could be done even without buying the product).
But, that independency may not be required to I still be able to sell my product keeping (1) and (3) not freely distributable, any ideia about it?
Also, that independency may not be actually/practically viable, may not be actually possible to fully acoomplish...
Also, in this case, I am not sure if I can distribute that package (2) toguether with (1) and (3), like on a DVD...
@Kaetemi arent you confusing GPL with CC? GPL infects everything (least the output generated by it) (I am not saying it is bad, just how it works)
PS.: (Offtopic) sry @Dnyarri, I read your post and did not see it was a reply to another, his name does not show there making it clear your post was a reply?
The CC-BY-SA edited images are to be released as a modification with the same CC-BY-SA license.
But you also said "mixed with others to create effects", now the point is, the other works were CC-BY-SA too? I think the derived work documentation should just say it is a mix made with the originals from this and that authors.
Now, if the works used in the mix are from different licenses, unless they are incompatible, I think the most restrictive must apply. What were the works licenses you used?
@p0ss
No no, see, I respect and even like them wanting to prevent their work from providing income to some proprietary project. I dont hate them! I myself would like to make such media if I had the skill..
My only concern is to find a way to have a quickstart to my project, I am solely a coder... and I dont want my project look like crap...
I think also that just promoting who created all that media may not be enogth for some ppl, on the other side, if I intended to pay them all, could not rest enough for myself (lol), who said I will be successful?
So basically, I need to be sure, if I can use at least CC-0 without being sued... cuz I may have no money either to pay any lawyer... AND I do NOT want to be forced to release my sorce code, where a small company could grab and create a big project and deal with all that stuff that I cannot alone, what would prevent me from get any income from my work... lead to depression and finally... if I am lucky, enlightment! and utter mind freedom from this world (heh?)
Unfortunately, till now, nobody seems able to make it clear if a indie developer can survive using any "free" media out there.
And this thing that I can sell an open source project... sorry but that makes no sense to me (I know it is wide spread and you are just saying what you read out there), it is like putting hope on something that is not granted at all...
To anyone interested, I just found this:
http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary
I think I will just giveup on anything CC-BY-SA... and even CC-BY... for my commercial closed source project. Good most assets I got were CC-0!
The CC-0 databases seems the only really safe option for a closed source commercial application of a begginer indie developer.
The CC-0 databases here and in other places seems humoungously enough to keep me calm enough to be able to focus on coding...
The CC-0 licence doesnt have that specific limitation about sounds/music and its synchronization with images (what would actually be a source code in my case), that I almost overlooked...
EDIT: I am obliged to credit all the works, what is important.
EDIT(again): I can re-release everything I modify as CC-0 (not less tho, cannot release it as proprietary, must be at least CC-0), but only all the CC-0 modified content must follow that rule. I can keep my binaries proprietary, my sources closed, and my other created or bought assets proprietary too. (or not?)
The CC-0 legal code is much more readable than others, this time I did not get stunned when reaching half of it!
And... I just expect I am completely right this time? :)
oh I see... only small bits of their images could be used to create a big one, or change it enough, so such new one would not even look like any images they have... you know what.. better not even touch it :), I am already scared enough without GoodTextures hehe :/, unless I am putting it solely on a model or map bundle (what I may never do as I am mainly a coder)...
So, I guess, basically, even if I crop and scale their images, into a new texture, the only way to use them on my project would be to upload them somewhere (like here) under CC-BY-SA (with (A) credit) and force the user to download directly from that place, one by one, even if it was allowed in someway to be a batch download (tho I dont believe it would be allowed without login and so on)... seems unpratical and puts the project under a weak situation where urls may change, site is down and so on...
I felt something was wrong as they restricted the use to model and map bundles. And I sensed, my project would actually feel like a material package. Good this "sense" works where my intellect fails lol.. Good I ran away from it.. and thanks again for clearing that out where I couldnt by myself ! :)
So basically, I could put the royalty free vanilla and modified textures from GoodTextures on a 4th package on my list like this?
4) royalty free textures from GoodTextures.com. A) One or more textures on these maps or 3D-models have been created with images from Goodtextures.com. These images may not be redistributed by default. Please visit www.goodtextures.com for more information.
Despite what they ask us to say (A) is related to a bundle 3D model or Map. In my case, their textures would be available to the whole application use it on models, maps or anything else. So it cannot be considered as a map or 3d model...
And finally I would simply pack it toguether with (1) application binaries and (3) closed artwork, but in this case, (4) would be directly acessible by users with no restrictions by the software, but they would not be allowed to use them without previously visiting and downloading the original from GoodTextures right?
Also, I understand no GoodTextures texture can be mixed (by creating a derivative work) with any CC texture/image. It can only be mixed with textures from GoodTextures to remain under the same "license". I can modify them with tools like gimp tho, following these rules right?
And finally, any video or screenshots that contain views of any GoodTextures textures, must still be, if distributed, under CC-BY-SA, because of the CC textures present on the scene, and also add their statement (A), like in:
"This video/screenshot is licensed under CC-BY-SA. One or more textures on these maps or 3D-models have been created with images from Goodtextures.com. These images may not be redistributed by default. Please visit www.goodtextures.com for more information."
That is the complication I am talking about...
I would have to do all that right?
Good I run away from CGTextures based on this http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?227060-NO-more-CGTextures. But I ran away too from http://www.goodtextures.com/, as they simply do not have a licence, and their damands doesnt make me sure how I could use their textures, combined with other works (the packaging part was confuse to me).
And thanks for taking time to understand it all. I always have a hard time trying to read the licence legal code.
Some places provide a simplified version of the licence. But almost NO place (may be there is some?) simply says how we can and how we cannot use works licenced under their license, with exemplified situations like the one I described. I think most of these talks about licences are to ammend that missing and so important information, that is actually what matters in the end.
@Kaetemi, very interesting, the moment you were explaining, more questions came by, and as I kept reading they were all answered :), thanks!
And, as you quoted about https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s2a4, I just understand that, the user, running the application on his/her machine, is not distributing that dinamically "random" generated media. And so, whatever is "just seen" (but not recorded) on the application, vanishes in void, and cannot fall under any license as there is nothing left after the application closes (only user limited and, to the date, still unrecordable memories). But that is just my reasoning, and may provide a good question at http://programmers.stackexchange.com/
So basically, I have to add something like this on the starting screen and the readme:
"If you are using the CC-BY-SA package (2). If you take screenshots, create any video or even just audio, or any possible other media, out of this running application; if that media is vanilla or even modified/adapted; if that media is distributed; that media distribution must be under CC-BY-SA license, publicly available without any restriction and without any required payment."
*of course, in a case that it may be possible to not depend on package (2). For ex. (2) could, one day, be fully substituted by closed media (not that I want to, I just want to be able to sell my product and live out of it, and promote all ppl that made their work available for free and helped on my quickstart; it is just that I am thinking on how things work).
I think also that a payment can be asked (but not required) to the creation of that media (not distribution); for ex. if someone pays someone else to create a demo video (otherwise that person would not do it for free) with detailed explanations and so on; as soon that video is distributed, it must be freely available under CC-BY-SA, and who paid may require some of their propaganda to show there too. (I am still just thinking also).
@Kaetemi,
I am beggining on all this hassle, sry being harsh, that way you said startled me; thanks for making it more clear (to me at least).
And 1st of all, if I win lottery or alike I will make my project opensource, til then I need it to not have a boss :)
About "the CONTENT that is mixed with the SA", so basically, how you see we indie devs should licence the commercial (non freely distributable) project we create, this way?
1) Binary executables: copyrighted closed source.
Requires a payment.
2) CC-0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA art work media/assets (and all the ones I modified/adapted too, derived work): all these works will be packaged together in a single package file, made available publicly (downloadable) without any costs, and released under CC-BY-SA.
Free.
3) assets I create (or hire ppl to create) from photographs, recordings and so on..: packaged with a key; cannot be extracted and freely distributed (or modified and distributed), without prior written permission; is what makes my application unique, so I understand I must protect it.
Requires payment (distributed together with (1) tho).
PS.: Those executables (1) depend on package (3) and could not depend on package (2). I could create default fallbacks, so, without package (2), the game would look like in development mode. So after the user buy the product, he/she would still be required to download the CC-BY-SA asset pack (2) for free (as could be done even without buying the product).
But, that independency may not be required to I still be able to sell my product keeping (1) and (3) not freely distributable, any ideia about it?
Also, that independency may not be actually/practically viable, may not be actually possible to fully acoomplish...
Also, in this case, I am not sure if I can distribute that package (2) toguether with (1) and (3), like on a DVD...
@Kaetemi arent you confusing GPL with CC? GPL infects everything (least the output generated by it) (I am not saying it is bad, just how it works)
PS.: (Offtopic) sry @Dnyarri, I read your post and did not see it was a reply to another, his name does not show there making it clear your post was a reply?
hi @andrelopes1993,
The CC-BY-SA edited images are to be released as a modification with the same CC-BY-SA license.
But you also said "mixed with others to create effects", now the point is, the other works were CC-BY-SA too? I think the derived work documentation should just say it is a mix made with the originals from this and that authors.
Now, if the works used in the mix are from different licenses, unless they are incompatible, I think the most restrictive must apply. What were the works licenses you used?
Pages