Of course. Do you see the "Licence" tags in the left column? That tells you under what conditions you're allowed to use this sprite (click the banner for an explanation of that particular licence).
I have re-aligned the images in the goblin-with-sword sheet above (attached). This fixes a problem with the goblin "drifting" mentioned above. I've also flipped the order to rear-left-front-right to match the other LPC assets and moved the attack animation to its own rank (so each row only contains frames for one animation).
For anyone who wants to do something similar, here's what I did (after splitting to one animation per rank):
1. Cut the image up in vertical strip, one frame for each animation in each.
2. Place each strip in a new layer.
3. Pick an anchor point. I picked the base of the head for the rear-facing one (with one exception, as mentioned below), the belt-buckle for the front-facing and side-view, and the support foot for the stabbing animation.
4. For each frame, align the anchor point across different layers. For the rear-facing one, I used the base of the feet instead of the head for a few frames, to preserve the bob of the head.
5. Convert the different layers to a sprite sheet (there's a GIMP plugin for that).
EDIT: I just realised that this guy actually appears taller than the LPC base sprites, which looks a bit off...
I added a hover/idle animation for the plain red imp. It's just the normal move animation of the wings, but without the body animation, so it looks like the imp is just hovering in place.
I'll probably do the others if/when I need them, but for now I thought I'dpu this up here for anyone else who might be interested.
I had an idea(it's kinda crude, I admit), what if you distributed the game and the Stallmanized assets separately? Then make a system that implements the art assets(can be replaced with user-made ones too, think resource packs in Minecraft)
I understand this is a common(ish?) way to get around the anti-DRM clause in CC licenced material (actually, it probably applies to GPL too): after the (DRM'ed) program is installed, it downloads tha artwork, which is then not distributed under DRM as required per the licence.
It's really jumping through hoops though.
and then you have not made the game a derivative
The definition of "derivative" in CC licences is vague, but I don't think anyone would consider a full game as a derivative of the art under any reasonable definition of "derivative".
This is extremely useful. I've been looking for ages for a Zelda-like set (or actually, a dungeon set that allows for doors on all four directions), particularly one I could use with LPC assets. Most of what I was able to find wasn't immediately useful for me, and making my own is time-consuming (and that's before trying to make it look somewhat decent), but this is pretty much spot-on.
Anyway, because I specifically want to use it alongside LPC assets, I did a quick recolour of the set to the LPC palette; I left the gold/brass highlights since the LPC palette doesn't have the right colours to map those (some of the other LPC assets might though, I haven't checked yet), but at least the base tones now match. I also added a door-frame without the door, to allow for open doors (just the one here). I hope that's useful to someone.
I'm not familiar with Deuteronomy - could you explain that passage and its importance to your project's main contributor?
It's the bit that says that raping a girl is to be punished by paying 50 silver to her father and marrying said girl afterwards (I had to look that up too).
You want to share your work but you don't want to see it shamelessly exploited.
Sure, that's natural. What I don't understand is how a non-repackaging clause helps that. You're right that they're somewhat common (not just for fonts, I've seen it for other stuff too), and I've never really understood what the actual benefit is. I understand it as a gut-reaction (and have put it on things I released in the past) but ultimately all it does is give you the illusion of extra protection while limiting your exposure.
Of course anyone who really wants such a clause is free to do so, but there is probably a concern that the clause is supposed to address that could be better or alternatively addressed in a different way, which is why I asked.
So it's fine to sell or distribute compiled binaries, it's not a problem as long as you make the source available somewhere.
My understanding is that this isn't quite enough: I must also be allowed to make changes I wish, recompile and run the software. This isn't a problem on a laptop or desktop machine (where you can develop and run stuff) and I don't think it's an issue on Android, because you're allowed to run random apps on your device if you enable the developer/debugging mode. Of course, iOS is different: you're not allowed to deploy custom binaries on iOS device, so there is still a conflict with the GPL there.
I wish CC had a similar idea, you must make derivative work available sans DRM, not you can only distribute sans DRM.
Indeed. I would think that that is actually the intent, but if it were then I would also expect it to have been corrected by now...
I understand that there is a technical loop-hole that allows for using CC content in a DRM'ed App: don't bundle the art with the App, but have the App download the content from a server after the App is installed. It sounds incredibly convoluted and fragile (introducing another point of failure) simply to get around a poorly-worded licence text...
I don't want people to re-upload my stuff though, unless of course they have modified it or they're using it as a part of their project. But I don't want people to just download it from here, then purely just reuploading it somewhere else.
Why exactly do you want this? As pointed out, there is no open licence that lets you do this, but more importantly, it seems like a fairly useless addition that can only limit the usefulness of your work.
If you're afraid of people uploading and taking credit for your work, having such a clause doesn't actually prevent them from doing that and taking credit for your work is just as disallowed under CC-BY.
Yeah, CC-SA seems way too demanding for whoever uses the models, as from what I understand they would need to release their whole project under the same licence?
I never understood the line of reasoning that leads to that conclusion. The licence applies to "derivatives" of the art, which under no sane definition of "derivative" applies to the source code of a project (but the definition of "adapted material" in the licence text is vague). You can always licence the art and the code separately (or even licence different pieces of code separately), which is probably a good thing to do anyway since the CC licences are not intended (or recommended) for source code and something like the GPL is not intended (or recommended) for art (and indeed makes little sense to me personally for that particular case).
CC-BY and CC-SA licenses include a clause prohibiting the use of additional "legal terms or technological measures (DRM) that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits". In practice, this means artwork using this license may not be legally distributed on platforms that use any form of 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM).
What happens if you distribute the art separately, or give users the option of distributing the art from within the project? Prehaps that only counts as following the letter rather than the intent of the licence though. Even then, if you need to exploit a loop-hole like that it probably means there is something wrong with your choice of licence...
Well, I'm a technical person (a programmer by heart), and for us, programmers, it is either yes or no - true or false. We can't be bothered with political and public relation side of things.
Futermore people at OGA have long pointed me that it is unethical to scavenge sf.net repositories, because artists and programmers could be against that. Sincerely I've grown tired of that girlish "people have feelings" nonsense I've to hear since childhood, so I'll just leave OGA, because I clearly have incompatible worldview with OGA's policies.
I guess I qualify as a programmer (certainly not an artist), so let me say here that I would like to disassociate myself from this mindset. You don't have to be a sociopath to be a programmer.
Of course. Do you see the "Licence" tags in the left column? That tells you under what conditions you're allowed to use this sprite (click the banner for an explanation of that particular licence).
I have re-aligned the images in the goblin-with-sword sheet above (attached). This fixes a problem with the goblin "drifting" mentioned above. I've also flipped the order to rear-left-front-right to match the other LPC assets and moved the attack animation to its own rank (so each row only contains frames for one animation).
For anyone who wants to do something similar, here's what I did (after splitting to one animation per rank):
1. Cut the image up in vertical strip, one frame for each animation in each.
2. Place each strip in a new layer.
3. Pick an anchor point. I picked the base of the head for the rear-facing one (with one exception, as mentioned below), the belt-buckle for the front-facing and side-view, and the support foot for the stabbing animation.
4. For each frame, align the anchor point across different layers. For the rear-facing one, I used the base of the feet instead of the head for a few frames, to preserve the bob of the head.
5. Convert the different layers to a sprite sheet (there's a GIMP plugin for that).
EDIT: I just realised that this guy actually appears taller than the LPC base sprites, which looks a bit off...
I added a hover/idle animation for the plain red imp. It's just the normal move animation of the wings, but without the body animation, so it looks like the imp is just hovering in place.
I'll probably do the others if/when I need them, but for now I thought I'dpu this up here for anyone else who might be interested.
I understand this is a common(ish?) way to get around the anti-DRM clause in CC licenced material (actually, it probably applies to GPL too): after the (DRM'ed) program is installed, it downloads tha artwork, which is then not distributed under DRM as required per the licence.
It's really jumping through hoops though.
The definition of "derivative" in CC licences is vague, but I don't think anyone would consider a full game as a derivative of the art under any reasonable definition of "derivative".
OGA-BY even lists you use them on platforms that impose DRM, which is a pain with CC-BY.
Or such is my understanding.
Any of the listed licences allow for use in commercial projects, by the way (as long as you follow the licence).
This is extremely useful. I've been looking for ages for a Zelda-like set (or actually, a dungeon set that allows for doors on all four directions), particularly one I could use with LPC assets. Most of what I was able to find wasn't immediately useful for me, and making my own is time-consuming (and that's before trying to make it look somewhat decent), but this is pretty much spot-on.
Anyway, because I specifically want to use it alongside LPC assets, I did a quick recolour of the set to the LPC palette; I left the gold/brass highlights since the LPC palette doesn't have the right colours to map those (some of the other LPC assets might though, I haven't checked yet), but at least the base tones now match. I also added a door-frame without the door, to allow for open doors (just the one here). I hope that's useful to someone.
It's the bit that says that raping a girl is to be punished by paying 50 silver to her father and marrying said girl afterwards (I had to look that up too).
Sure, that's natural. What I don't understand is how a non-repackaging clause helps that. You're right that they're somewhat common (not just for fonts, I've seen it for other stuff too), and I've never really understood what the actual benefit is. I understand it as a gut-reaction (and have put it on things I released in the past) but ultimately all it does is give you the illusion of extra protection while limiting your exposure.
Of course anyone who really wants such a clause is free to do so, but there is probably a concern that the clause is supposed to address that could be better or alternatively addressed in a different way, which is why I asked.
My understanding is that this isn't quite enough: I must also be allowed to make changes I wish, recompile and run the software. This isn't a problem on a laptop or desktop machine (where you can develop and run stuff) and I don't think it's an issue on Android, because you're allowed to run random apps on your device if you enable the developer/debugging mode. Of course, iOS is different: you're not allowed to deploy custom binaries on iOS device, so there is still a conflict with the GPL there.
Indeed. I would think that that is actually the intent, but if it were then I would also expect it to have been corrected by now...
I understand that there is a technical loop-hole that allows for using CC content in a DRM'ed App: don't bundle the art with the App, but have the App download the content from a server after the App is installed. It sounds incredibly convoluted and fragile (introducing another point of failure) simply to get around a poorly-worded licence text...
Why exactly do you want this? As pointed out, there is no open licence that lets you do this, but more importantly, it seems like a fairly useless addition that can only limit the usefulness of your work.
If you're afraid of people uploading and taking credit for your work, having such a clause doesn't actually prevent them from doing that and taking credit for your work is just as disallowed under CC-BY.
I never understood the line of reasoning that leads to that conclusion. The licence applies to "derivatives" of the art, which under no sane definition of "derivative" applies to the source code of a project (but the definition of "adapted material" in the licence text is vague). You can always licence the art and the code separately (or even licence different pieces of code separately), which is probably a good thing to do anyway since the CC licences are not intended (or recommended) for source code and something like the GPL is not intended (or recommended) for art (and indeed makes little sense to me personally for that particular case).
What happens if you distribute the art separately, or give users the option of distributing the art from within the project? Prehaps that only counts as following the letter rather than the intent of the licence though. Even then, if you need to exploit a loop-hole like that it probably means there is something wrong with your choice of licence...
I guess I qualify as a programmer (certainly not an artist), so let me say here that I would like to disassociate myself from this mindset. You don't have to be a sociopath to be a programmer.
Pages