Wow, really great work, and so nice that you worked to get it released FOSS. I will look forward to trying this out! It looks like you've put a lot of work into making it.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that by removing the title "sting" and "Lotr" this is a fairly basic sword design, especially without a handle. But it probably depends on how precisely you modeled it after sting, as in proportions, the ridge running down the blade, the hilt, etc. Probably deserves a mod's opinion nonetheless.
Either way, it looks really good, especially for your first 3d model ever!!!
I actually like these lengthy versions much more than the very short blurbs currently in the FAQ! For the most part I don't have any thoughts, but I think the GNU GPL section could use some brushing up.
Under GNU GPL, your language seems too soft: "commercial use may be okay" and "but generally should only be considered if you are willing to release your entire project under a GPL license." When I read this it just makes me wonder - CAN I use this art in a closed source game? Does "willing" mean it is required? The current FAQ states "Since the FSF has clarified that use of art does not trigger the GPL's linking requirement, the LGPL is effectively the same as the GPL when used for art." I haven't searched much, but I can only find conflicting information about this. I would naturally assume including GPL art means you must GPL your software. I may be wrong, but the language you propose doesn't clarify that issue for me, and seems to conflict with the advice Bart gives in the current FAQ.
Also, I think that the FAQ deserves a whole section for "Multiple licenses". It has this section now, but I like the language you use more.
Very helpful information. I was unable to access the site this afternoon around 4:30pm EST, but I did not receive any emails. Will be updating passwords nonetheless.
I think this looks awesome, and I think anybody here would be just as excited if someone else made an LP of their game. I hope to have a chance to play it too, over the next few days!
Good work @capbros, I think these are very thoughtful changes! Here are my thoughts:
> Synchronize text between Site FAQ and Submission Guidelines...
I almost think that the Submission Guidelines should be entirely moved onto the FAQ. Or at least more easily available through the website - I didn't even KNOW there were submission guidelines until after I had submitted a couple pieces of art. I also think the only really useful parts of the guidelines are the first two sections ("General", and "Copyright and Trademarks"). The rest seems relatively trivial and/or unenforced.
> Add/link short form license description to submission guidelines/site faq
Again, I think it should all be on the FAQ, including adding OGA-BY to the site faq. Also, the link on the top table of contents goes to "faq#q-licenses" which is now out-of-date, and instead should be "faq#q-proprietary" as in @caps link.
> Add explicit mention of anti-DRM clause
I think this is VERY important, I definitely did not know or understand that when I first started visiting the site. Given the current structure of the FAQ, I think it would be better to compress your DRM paragraph down to one or two (tops) sentences appended to both the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA descriptions. Something like
"Furthermore, you may not restrict the ability of those who receive a CC-BY(-SA) work to exercise rights granted under the license. Note that many popular game distribution networks may impose DRM or other restrictions incompatbable with this requirement. (Perhaps add a relevant link)"
Then under description of OGA-BY, you can just say "Identical to CC-BY, but with the anti-DRM clause removed to allow for distribution on networks incompatible with CC-BY(-SA)"
> Add language explicitly prohibiting 're-licensed' or 'compatible' license submissions
"OpenGameArt.com only accepts artwork which may be licensed under one of our explicitly allowed licenses. Some unlisted licenses may be legally re-licensed to an allowed one, but it is your responsibility to ensure such compatibility. In such a case, you must explicity declare that you have relicensed the work."
> Add language recommending (though not requiring) that submitters obtain permission
Great idea. I would add a requirement that whether they obtain permission or not, they explicitly declare it. On the submission page, if the submitter selects "No" under "Is this your own work?", they must select another "Yes"/"No" radio button saying if they obtained explicit permission, with instructions to describe what they have done in the description. Perhaps here they can also have a raido button to declare whether they are relicensing the work.
> Make link to submission guidelines more prominent on submission form
YES! Like I said, I didn't even know there was a set of submission guidelines when I first submitted. Then I later had a hard time finding them again, because I didn't know you had to be on the Submit Art page to even see that link. Perhaps if users click the "Submit Art" link, it takes them FIRST to the Submission Guidelines, then they have to click a link on the botton saying they have read and understand the guidelines (so they can't miss it).
> Add language detailing what constitutes a derivative work
I think this is a really complex topic, but I think a brief description could be helpful. As long as it's clear that the description cannot be complete, and is not legal advice.
> Add language explicitly stating that preview images fall under the same license
I agree with you that this is the only sensible solution, and that it should be stated explicitly.
Overall, I think you lay out some very good suggestions, and hope that they get considered!
One thing about the licenses that I think should be made more explicit is exactly what files or content they apply to. For example, I have seen numerous submissions where somebody included something in the preview image for demonstration purposes, but was not intended to be included with the license. There have been some specific and obvious cases (for instance this - note though that the poster has now removed the offfending preview), but I think it is pretty prevalent.
For instance in the 3D section it is common to include a screenshot of the model in Blender (such as this). In this case, the preview includes multiple Microsoft owned icons which are obviously not meant to be released under CC-BY-SA, as well as the Blender logo (in both the icon list on bottom, and in the application window at the top), which is explicitly exluded from the GPL license applied to the Blender application.
These are obviously cases where the license selected is not intended to apply to the ENTIRE preview image, however there are no clear guidelines about what is acceptable or not in the previews, and whether or not the license applies to that content as well.
I think in most cases this is probably clear to users what is or is not acceptable to take from the previews, but some added clarity specifying exactly what licenses apply to what content, a la @caeles, wouldn't hurt.
Unfortunately the site's search has issues, but fixing it is a top priority! In the meantime you can try browsing using tags, for instance the "goblin" tag brings up all of these, many of which may be missing from the search.
Wow, really great work, and so nice that you worked to get it released FOSS. I will look forward to trying this out! It looks like you've put a lot of work into making it.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that by removing the title "sting" and "Lotr" this is a fairly basic sword design, especially without a handle. But it probably depends on how precisely you modeled it after sting, as in proportions, the ridge running down the blade, the hilt, etc. Probably deserves a mod's opinion nonetheless.
Either way, it looks really good, especially for your first 3d model ever!!!
I actually like these lengthy versions much more than the very short blurbs currently in the FAQ! For the most part I don't have any thoughts, but I think the GNU GPL section could use some brushing up.
Under GNU GPL, your language seems too soft: "commercial use may be okay" and "but generally should only be considered if you are willing to release your entire project under a GPL license." When I read this it just makes me wonder - CAN I use this art in a closed source game? Does "willing" mean it is required? The current FAQ states "Since the FSF has clarified that use of art does not trigger the GPL's linking requirement, the LGPL is effectively the same as the GPL when used for art." I haven't searched much, but I can only find conflicting information about this. I would naturally assume including GPL art means you must GPL your software. I may be wrong, but the language you propose doesn't clarify that issue for me, and seems to conflict with the advice Bart gives in the current FAQ.
Also, I think that the FAQ deserves a whole section for "Multiple licenses". It has this section now, but I like the language you use more.
Very helpful information. I was unable to access the site this afternoon around 4:30pm EST, but I did not receive any emails. Will be updating passwords nonetheless.
@looneybits Thanks for your compliments!
I think this looks awesome, and I think anybody here would be just as excited if someone else made an LP of their game. I hope to have a chance to play it too, over the next few days!
Good work @capbros, I think these are very thoughtful changes! Here are my thoughts:
> Synchronize text between Site FAQ and Submission Guidelines...
I almost think that the Submission Guidelines should be entirely moved onto the FAQ. Or at least more easily available through the website - I didn't even KNOW there were submission guidelines until after I had submitted a couple pieces of art. I also think the only really useful parts of the guidelines are the first two sections ("General", and "Copyright and Trademarks"). The rest seems relatively trivial and/or unenforced.
> Add/link short form license description to submission guidelines/site faq
Again, I think it should all be on the FAQ, including adding OGA-BY to the site faq. Also, the link on the top table of contents goes to "faq#q-licenses" which is now out-of-date, and instead should be "faq#q-proprietary" as in @caps link.
> Add explicit mention of anti-DRM clause
I think this is VERY important, I definitely did not know or understand that when I first started visiting the site. Given the current structure of the FAQ, I think it would be better to compress your DRM paragraph down to one or two (tops) sentences appended to both the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA descriptions. Something like
"Furthermore, you may not restrict the ability of those who receive a CC-BY(-SA) work to exercise rights granted under the license. Note that many popular game distribution networks may impose DRM or other restrictions incompatbable with this requirement. (Perhaps add a relevant link)"
Then under description of OGA-BY, you can just say "Identical to CC-BY, but with the anti-DRM clause removed to allow for distribution on networks incompatible with CC-BY(-SA)"
> Add language explicitly prohibiting 're-licensed' or 'compatible' license submissions
This is tough, because there actually is language explicitly PERMITTING this. Since it would be unreasonable to manually list all licenses which may be relicensed into OGA, I don't know how to deal with this beyond just saying something like
"OpenGameArt.com only accepts artwork which may be licensed under one of our explicitly allowed licenses. Some unlisted licenses may be legally re-licensed to an allowed one, but it is your responsibility to ensure such compatibility. In such a case, you must explicity declare that you have relicensed the work."
> Add language recommending (though not requiring) that submitters obtain permission
Great idea. I would add a requirement that whether they obtain permission or not, they explicitly declare it. On the submission page, if the submitter selects "No" under "Is this your own work?", they must select another "Yes"/"No" radio button saying if they obtained explicit permission, with instructions to describe what they have done in the description. Perhaps here they can also have a raido button to declare whether they are relicensing the work.
> Make link to submission guidelines more prominent on submission form
YES! Like I said, I didn't even know there was a set of submission guidelines when I first submitted. Then I later had a hard time finding them again, because I didn't know you had to be on the Submit Art page to even see that link. Perhaps if users click the "Submit Art" link, it takes them FIRST to the Submission Guidelines, then they have to click a link on the botton saying they have read and understand the guidelines (so they can't miss it).
> Add language detailing what constitutes a derivative work
I think this is a really complex topic, but I think a brief description could be helpful. As long as it's clear that the description cannot be complete, and is not legal advice.
> Add language explicitly stating that preview images fall under the same license
I agree with you that this is the only sensible solution, and that it should be stated explicitly.
Overall, I think you lay out some very good suggestions, and hope that they get considered!
One thing about the licenses that I think should be made more explicit is exactly what files or content they apply to. For example, I have seen numerous submissions where somebody included something in the preview image for demonstration purposes, but was not intended to be included with the license. There have been some specific and obvious cases (for instance this - note though that the poster has now removed the offfending preview), but I think it is pretty prevalent.
For instance in the 3D section it is common to include a screenshot of the model in Blender (such as this). In this case, the preview includes multiple Microsoft owned icons which are obviously not meant to be released under CC-BY-SA, as well as the Blender logo (in both the icon list on bottom, and in the application window at the top), which is explicitly exluded from the GPL license applied to the Blender application.
These are obviously cases where the license selected is not intended to apply to the ENTIRE preview image, however there are no clear guidelines about what is acceptable or not in the previews, and whether or not the license applies to that content as well.
I think in most cases this is probably clear to users what is or is not acceptable to take from the previews, but some added clarity specifying exactly what licenses apply to what content, a la @caeles, wouldn't hurt.
I love these! I also think that darkening the back leg makes a big difference. Can't wait to see what else you come up with!
Unfortunately the site's search has issues, but fixing it is a top priority! In the meantime you can try browsing using tags, for instance the "goblin" tag brings up all of these, many of which may be missing from the search.
Pages