According to OGA...GPL should be compatible. As long as the other licenses are for non-commercial and commercial use as a separate entity, not a part of the GPL art. I don't think everything gets turned into GPL unless it is literately mingling together with it.
For instance, an okay example would be the GPL art png file and the CC-BY png file separate from each other. They are considered Non-functional Data which is data that has an aesthetic purpose (of or relating to art or beauty) and it can be separate from code. As long as both allow commercial and non-commercial use.
A bad example would be taking GPL pixels and mixing them with CC-BY pixels or putting different licensed art on the same png.
The code could very well mix the art together. Since code and data are considered separate. As long as the code is not making png files or whatever with mixed license. Mapping levels would allow mixture because the code is doing it.
The same should be for audio because it is a from of art and beauty.
Loops holes are everywhere, but not having to use loopholes would really be best.
Also, rendering scenes in Blender with GPL and other Licences might be allowed, but might not be able to be shared to opensource. (Unless public domain or some other super free license). One would have to render things seperately and share seperately. They could overlay with transparency with game code.
He/she won't come after you because his/her chainsaw spirit is behind everyone that downloads the pixel art. It will always get you. (A complete joke by the way)
Yes, according to te licenses you are allowed to modify them, but you will have to share the modification under the license you choose except of the LGPL license. I believe you don't "have" to release the asset with it. I think that is the point of Lessor GPL.
the freedom to use the software for any purpose, the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and the freedom to share the changes you make.
The LGPL and GPL licenses differ with one major exception; with LGPL the the requirement that you open up the source code to your own extensions to the software is removed.
I love your fantasy/science fiction style!
It reminded me of Barney.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoikUowTLUo
Dang. This isn't bad at all! With better soundfonts and vsts your music would be epic! Although, it's great as is.
It needs more attention! Still one of my favorite songs on OGA.
http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-ccgplcompat
According to OGA...GPL should be compatible. As long as the other licenses are for non-commercial and commercial use as a separate entity, not a part of the GPL art. I don't think everything gets turned into GPL unless it is literately mingling together with it.
For instance, an okay example would be the GPL art png file and the CC-BY png file separate from each other. They are considered Non-functional Data which is data that has an aesthetic purpose (of or relating to art or beauty) and it can be separate from code. As long as both allow commercial and non-commercial use.
A bad example would be taking GPL pixels and mixing them with CC-BY pixels or putting different licensed art on the same png.
The code could very well mix the art together. Since code and data are considered separate. As long as the code is not making png files or whatever with mixed license. Mapping levels would allow mixture because the code is doing it.
The same should be for audio because it is a from of art and beauty.
Loops holes are everywhere, but not having to use loopholes would really be best.
Also, rendering scenes in Blender with GPL and other Licences might be allowed, but might not be able to be shared to opensource. (Unless public domain or some other super free license). One would have to render things seperately and share seperately. They could overlay with transparency with game code.
He/she won't come after you because his/her chainsaw spirit is behind everyone that downloads the pixel art. It will always get you. (A complete joke by the way)
The kit is released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, GPL 3.0 and LGPL 3.0.
Why has LGPL 3.0 not been added the the license section?
@cvieira
Yes, according to te licenses you are allowed to modify them, but you will have to share the modification under the license you choose except of the LGPL license. I believe you don't "have" to release the asset with it. I think that is the point of Lessor GPL.
the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
the freedom to share the changes you make.
The LGPL and GPL licenses differ with one major exception; with LGPL the the requirement that you open up the source code to your own extensions to the software is removed.
All your songs are spectacular!
Just use anyvideoconverter or any converter to convert it to an opensource format like OGG. It should shrink 10-13 MB.
I love how you used a backslash ( \ ) for the title. It makes naming files in Linux easier.
Pages