Thanks for sticking with this Cap! They suggest that simply including -SA content is not enough to call the game an adaptation, in their view. However they also load it with caveats that a court may interpret the license text differently, and there are cases where the line blurs.
Overall, my 2 cents is that OGA should only recommend using -SA art in open source games, though acknowledge the ambiguity. I personally would only consider using it in a closed source game if I could get written permission from the copyright owner.
These are awesome, and I am using them in a game I'm currently working on. I just wanted to point out that background0.png (green hills with clouds) has a small transparent patch just to the left of the biggest mountain.
@MedicineStorm Good point about the copyright holder being the only one able to bring suit, and also that they may change their mind eventually.
It's interesting that the CC person specified that the source could be released under any license, because earlier they were unwilling to declare that the game itself did not constitute a derivative. I interpreted that as meaning that "IF your game is not a derivative, you may license it anyway you chose, but still have to license all derivative works under -SA." But it still sounds like in some cases the game may also be a derivative. But in some cases perhaps not.
They do seem to make it clear that -SA does not necessarily bleed over to all included assets.
It sounds like it's context specific. I'm eager to hear if they have anything else to add.
Glad you got a response! It's not a straight answer, but I guess I don't know how much I would have expected one. Here are my thoughts on how this should be addressed in the FAQ:
(1) Highlight the clear case they mention, that -SA sound synched with a moving image effectively requires that the image be released under -SA. (e.g. sword slash sound effects over a non-free sword-slashing animation)
(2) Safer = better. I even think that the uploaders intent may not matter as much as I would like to believe. For instance, imagine:
(i) Person A uploads an asset under -SA, with the intent that only "direct" modifications to the art need a share-alike clause.
(ii) Person B downloads the art and uses it in a closed source, commercial game.
(iii) Person C then demands that Person B abide by the license and release the whole game under -SA (assuming the game constitutes a derivative), even though that was not the original artists intent.
Person A might even state in their submission that they allow use in non-free video games, but I don't know that that would necessarily hold up in court, as it is not a real license. Or perhaps the court would throw out the entire -SA clause on the work, because of loopholes such an exemption might create.
Unless we get clearer guidance on this, and/or GPL licenses, I think OGA's FAQ should be clear that it is only safe to use -SA and GPL work in freely licensed games.
All of the art hosted on OGA is free to use, including in commercial projects. However, each piece of art is released under a particular (or perhaps many) license. Different licenses have different conditions, and if you use art from OGA, you must be careful to follow the terms of one of its licenses. None of the licenses that OGA accepts prevent you from modifying and using art, including in commercial projects, however some have conditions which you may want to avoid as a commercial developer.
On the left panel, you can see that it is released under the following licenses:
CC-BY 3.0
CC-BY-SA 3.0
GPL 2.0
GPL 3.0
OGA-BY 3.0
If you use that art, you may select ANY ONE of those licenses, and safely ignore the others. Each license has its own conditions, which are described briefly in the FAQ, and in more detail by Capbros here. To my knowledge, nobody affiliated with OGA is a lawyer, and our understanding of the license requirements is often not clear, and may be innacurate. It is your responsability to ensure that you meet the license requirements.
Specifically regarding the Share-Alike requirement:
If you make modifications or additions to the page you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.
So it seems like they believe that you don't have to license your entire work under -SA if you use -SA content from them.
But as redshrike noted, the only thing that really matters is what a court decides. I think the legal precedent that capbros linked to about the printed atlas including a -SA picture supports the idea that simply including and displaying -SA content in a larger work does not trigger the -SA clause.
And in fact it seems like some contributors only really wanted the art to be covered, while others want the games covered as well. I think the best advice regarding this license is to either play it safe, or ask the copyright owner for permission.
Briefly scanning the paper it looks like it focuses on things like mods, add-ons, plugins, and let's plays. So it looks at derivatives OF video games, not video games being derivatives of other things, which are generally derivatives or redistributions of "All-rights-reserved" content, and therefore not as applicable.
May be something useful in there regarding this conversation, but I doubt it.
Thanks for sticking with this Cap! They suggest that simply including -SA content is not enough to call the game an adaptation, in their view. However they also load it with caveats that a court may interpret the license text differently, and there are cases where the line blurs.
Overall, my 2 cents is that OGA should only recommend using -SA art in open source games, though acknowledge the ambiguity. I personally would only consider using it in a closed source game if I could get written permission from the copyright owner.
Huh, it looks like my network admin blocks all weebly sites, not just whitebirdstudio, for some reason. I get this error on them all:
Sorry to have falsely raised a flag!
These are awesome, and I am using them in a game I'm currently working on. I just wanted to point out that background0.png (green hills with clouds) has a small transparent patch just to the left of the biggest mountain.
@MedicineStorm Good point about the copyright holder being the only one able to bring suit, and also that they may change their mind eventually.
It's interesting that the CC person specified that the source could be released under any license, because earlier they were unwilling to declare that the game itself did not constitute a derivative. I interpreted that as meaning that "IF your game is not a derivative, you may license it anyway you chose, but still have to license all derivative works under -SA." But it still sounds like in some cases the game may also be a derivative. But in some cases perhaps not.
They do seem to make it clear that -SA does not necessarily bleed over to all included assets.
It sounds like it's context specific. I'm eager to hear if they have anything else to add.
Glad you got a response! It's not a straight answer, but I guess I don't know how much I would have expected one. Here are my thoughts on how this should be addressed in the FAQ:
(1) Highlight the clear case they mention, that -SA sound synched with a moving image effectively requires that the image be released under -SA. (e.g. sword slash sound effects over a non-free sword-slashing animation)
(2) Safer = better. I even think that the uploaders intent may not matter as much as I would like to believe. For instance, imagine:
Unless we get clearer guidance on this, and/or GPL licenses, I think OGA's FAQ should be clear that it is only safe to use -SA and GPL work in freely licensed games.
All of the art hosted on OGA is free to use, including in commercial projects. However, each piece of art is released under a particular (or perhaps many) license. Different licenses have different conditions, and if you use art from OGA, you must be careful to follow the terms of one of its licenses. None of the licenses that OGA accepts prevent you from modifying and using art, including in commercial projects, however some have conditions which you may want to avoid as a commercial developer.
For instance a recent submission http://opengameart.org/content/game-backgrounds-0.
On the left panel, you can see that it is released under the following licenses:
CC-BY 3.0
CC-BY-SA 3.0
GPL 2.0
GPL 3.0
OGA-BY 3.0
If you use that art, you may select ANY ONE of those licenses, and safely ignore the others. Each license has its own conditions, which are described briefly in the FAQ, and in more detail by Capbros here. To my knowledge, nobody affiliated with OGA is a lawyer, and our understanding of the license requirements is often not clear, and may be innacurate. It is your responsability to ensure that you meet the license requirements.
Just to add, Wikipedia licenses its text content under CC-BY-SA, and they have a short guide for how to comply with those terms (with the caveat that the guide is not actual legal advice). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content#Re-use_of_text_under_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike
Specifically regarding the Share-Alike requirement:
So it seems like they believe that you don't have to license your entire work under -SA if you use -SA content from them.
But as redshrike noted, the only thing that really matters is what a court decides. I think the legal precedent that capbros linked to about the printed atlas including a -SA picture supports the idea that simply including and displaying -SA content in a larger work does not trigger the -SA clause.
Hopefully you'll hear something back. It seems like this has been discussed to death multiple times on OGA, with no real consensus.
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/practicality-of-cc-by-sa
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/cc-by-sa-and-apple-licensing-incompati...
And in fact it seems like some contributors only really wanted the art to be covered, while others want the games covered as well. I think the best advice regarding this license is to either play it safe, or ask the copyright owner for permission.
I got an unsafe content warning when I tried to visit this link.
Briefly scanning the paper it looks like it focuses on things like mods, add-ons, plugins, and let's plays. So it looks at derivatives OF video games, not video games being derivatives of other things, which are generally derivatives or redistributions of "All-rights-reserved" content, and therefore not as applicable.
May be something useful in there regarding this conversation, but I doubt it.
Pages