First off, some disclaimers: I am not a lawyer. All below is just my understanding as a layman. I don't know the CC licenses in detail. I was not a mayor contributor to the LPC art phase.
Already in the original submission, I used a third license (http://www.weyer-zuhause.de/mark/software/oinm_license_0) whereever that was possible. In a nutshell, the license requires distribution of source, is copyleft, but tries hard to contaminate as little other stuff as possible.
But I was able to do that only to precious few parts of my submission, because most is somehow based on the LPC base assets. (Using the recommended shadow colour suffices to be a derived work.)
I am unlikely to relicense under more permissive terms.
@Sharm: Was that a CC-By grant to everybody (if so, which version?), or just a permission to cjc83486?
And do you by chance happen to be the sole originator of that shadow colour?
Back @cjc83486: I don't quite understand your last post.
- "if the code is GPL on github it is still worthless to anyone for the same reason I cant use your images". I don't see that at all. Even if, out of the box, the code only runs on some proprietary system, it could still be adapted to anything else.
- "since Sharm created most of the base tilesets, any derivatives (of just her artwork) should be ok to give myself permission to use." I find that a bit ambiguous. So let me clarify, just in case: You can distribute her unmodified work only under the same license. You can distribute YOUR modifications of her work more freely. You do not have permission to distribute anyone else's (edit: previously published) modifications of her work except under the GPL or CC-by-SA grant already given.
- "This doesnt, however allow you to release your dervatives to the public as CC-by." Are you refering to our derivatives of Sharm's work? Then, depending on her answer to my above question, this may be correct or not. Or are you refering to our derivatives of your derivatives? If you plan to restrict that, I have even less incentive to relicense my stuff.
For Gossip, I will eventually need something similar: A big, wet, long coated dog. Think old english sheepdog (aka bobtail). Needed animations would be running rather than walking, and shaking off all the water.
Size around 64 sounds good: I want it to be huge so that it can carry more water.
I probably couldn't use a wolf directly, but a wolf animation would be welcomed as a good starting point. And maybe, whoever fulfills makrohn's request feels like doing a little variation?
I don't agree with the concept of having different licenses -- or even different license needs -- for code and for art. I don't even agree with any definition of either code or art which excludes the other. The reason being that simple mutations allow software (by which I mean any data in digital form, not just what somebody might call "programs") to change its type (or category or whatever you would call these artificial divisions).
I have produced CG visual art by writing a program whose only purpose is to produce a single PNG. The program source code, the compiled program, and the produced PNG essentially are different forms of the same work. I wouldn't feel comfortable with tagging this work as either program or image. Sure, there is a definite point in the build process where we can cut a line between the program and its output (the PNG), But still it is one work and should have one license.
You can rip some parts from the source code and use them to create another program (or maybe a library) which is not an image at all. Then you have a program which is a derivative work of a PNG.
In these cases it feels awkward to use a license which is written specifically for programs or specifically for art. And this was just what I could come up with without much imagination. I expect that with some creativity and several mutations (aka. software reuse / derivative works), even stanger cases could appear.
Hmmm. I did apply archiving and compression as two steps, when I made that file, instead of using the -z option of tar. Maybe that causes problems. I will avoid it in the future. On the other hand, extraction with tar in one step works fine. So my best guess is that there is a buggy library out there which both WinRar and the Ubuntu desktop use.
Does it work for everybody to separate inflation and extraction? In that case I wouldn't spam OGA with an updated archive.
A related request: It would be nice to have one's favourite collections listed somewhere. After all, giving feedback is only one part of marking something as a favourite; another one is making it easier to retrieve (for oneself). At the moment, my favourite collections show up neither under "Favourites" nor under "Collections" in my profile.
I was also going to suggest that art entries are accompanied by a list of collections they are in (to help finding similar art). I see it is the case already - but only if I am logged in. Why is this?
Spontaneous idea: How about "People who marked this art as favourite also marked..."?
Same here when trying to submit art. More precisely when all fields are filled and I hit the "Save" button. The submission did *not* upload successfully.
First off, some disclaimers: I am not a lawyer. All below is just my understanding as a layman. I don't know the CC licenses in detail. I was not a mayor contributor to the LPC art phase.
Already in the original submission, I used a third license (http://www.weyer-zuhause.de/mark/software/oinm_license_0) whereever that was possible. In a nutshell, the license requires distribution of source, is copyleft, but tries hard to contaminate as little other stuff as possible.
But I was able to do that only to precious few parts of my submission, because most is somehow based on the LPC base assets. (Using the recommended shadow colour suffices to be a derived work.)
I am unlikely to relicense under more permissive terms.
@Sharm: Was that a CC-By grant to everybody (if so, which version?), or just a permission to cjc83486?
And do you by chance happen to be the sole originator of that shadow colour?
Back @cjc83486: I don't quite understand your last post.
- "if the code is GPL on github it is still worthless to anyone for the same reason I cant use your images". I don't see that at all. Even if, out of the box, the code only runs on some proprietary system, it could still be adapted to anything else.
- "since Sharm created most of the base tilesets, any derivatives (of just her artwork) should be ok to give myself permission to use." I find that a bit ambiguous. So let me clarify, just in case: You can distribute her unmodified work only under the same license. You can distribute YOUR modifications of her work more freely. You do not have permission to distribute anyone else's (edit: previously published) modifications of her work except under the GPL or CC-by-SA grant already given.
- "This doesnt, however allow you to release your dervatives to the public as CC-by." Are you refering to our derivatives of Sharm's work? Then, depending on her answer to my above question, this may be correct or not. Or are you refering to our derivatives of your derivatives? If you plan to restrict that, I have even less incentive to relicense my stuff.
For Gossip, I will eventually need something similar: A big, wet, long coated dog. Think old english sheepdog (aka bobtail). Needed animations would be running rather than walking, and shaking off all the water.
Size around 64 sounds good: I want it to be huge so that it can carry more water.
I probably couldn't use a wolf directly, but a wolf animation would be welcomed as a good starting point. And maybe, whoever fulfills makrohn's request feels like doing a little variation?
What is your favourite way for others (like me) to contribute?
I am currently using the sheet to try more variety for my LPC game Gossip's NPCs. I would like to commit fixes for bugs I encounter.
I don't agree with the concept of having different licenses -- or even different license needs -- for code and for art. I don't even agree with any definition of either code or art which excludes the other. The reason being that simple mutations allow software (by which I mean any data in digital form, not just what somebody might call "programs") to change its type (or category or whatever you would call these artificial divisions).
I have produced CG visual art by writing a program whose only purpose is to produce a single PNG. The program source code, the compiled program, and the produced PNG essentially are different forms of the same work. I wouldn't feel comfortable with tagging this work as either program or image. Sure, there is a definite point in the build process where we can cut a line between the program and its output (the PNG), But still it is one work and should have one license.
You can rip some parts from the source code and use them to create another program (or maybe a library) which is not an image at all. Then you have a program which is a derivative work of a PNG.
In these cases it feels awkward to use a license which is written specifically for programs or specifically for art. And this was just what I could come up with without much imagination. I expect that with some creativity and several mutations (aka. software reuse / derivative works), even stanger cases could appear.
Far too many problematic situations. So I did update the archive now. Sorry about all the trouble it has been causing. I still don't understand why.
Hmmm. I did apply archiving and compression as two steps, when I made that file, instead of using the -z option of tar. Maybe that causes problems. I will avoid it in the future. On the other hand, extraction with tar in one step works fine. So my best guess is that there is a buggy library out there which both WinRar and the Ubuntu desktop use.
Does it work for everybody to separate inflation and extraction? In that case I wouldn't spam OGA with an updated archive.
I cannot confirm any corruptness. Downloading, ungzipping and extracting works fine here. For reference, the standard way of opening is:
gunzip lpc_terrain.tar.zg
tar -xf lpc_terrain.tar
or just
tar -xf lpc_terrain.tar.gz
on the command line. If your OS has a GUI way of dealing with tar archives, then the respective tool may be faulty.
Or is it some file inside the archive which causes problems? The .xcfs are from gimp version 2.6.10.
A related request: It would be nice to have one's favourite collections listed somewhere. After all, giving feedback is only one part of marking something as a favourite; another one is making it easier to retrieve (for oneself). At the moment, my favourite collections show up neither under "Favourites" nor under "Collections" in my profile.
I was also going to suggest that art entries are accompanied by a list of collections they are in (to help finding similar art). I see it is the case already - but only if I am logged in. Why is this?
Spontaneous idea: How about "People who marked this art as favourite also marked..."?
Same here when trying to submit art. More precisely when all fields are filled and I hit the "Save" button. The submission did *not* upload successfully.
I did not intend to necromance this thread, but I noticed that it leads people to outdated versions of the game. Hence one more announcement:
I do not intend to necromance this thread, so refer to the above mentioned web site for news and for the latest version.
Pages