@1F616EMO: there is sufficient evidence that TOTRAF is Tom Peter. I can't really get into how I know that without violating this author's privacy, but rest assured if I thought there was a chance this submission presented a licensing issue, it wouldn't be downloadable.
@Tom Peter: I believe the confusion stems from the fact you have indicated above this is NOT your work. In which case, you don't have the authority to say who can use the track and you are not the person people should be giving credit for its use.
Oh, please attribute the artist as "DENZI", or "DENZI Room". I am not the artist, just the submitter and a fan of his. I would pass on your message to him but he's been incommunicado for years.
Oh, that's what he fixed? I thought he was talking about removing duplicate posts. Apologies, I didn't even realize the lpc subdomain wasn't working. Thank you for bringing it up.
Yes. This particular rule is- despite the frequent use the of the word "(un)ethical" above- actually based on practicality. Bart feels it is more beneficial to retain a reputation of good relationships with artists than it is to insist on the legal and ethical allowances, even if that reputation requires us to give some lattitude when an artist is being less than reasonable. I was skeptical of it at first myself, but the observed result is that we have gained more submissions than we have lost via this rule because artists feel more comfortable submitting knowing they don't have to worry about "donor's remorse".
P.S. And please note this is a rule for OGA. No one should feel they need to adhere to such a weird rule in their own endeavors. The licenses are irrevokable. Enjoy the assets accordingly.
@1F616EMO: there is sufficient evidence that TOTRAF is Tom Peter. I can't really get into how I know that without violating this author's privacy, but rest assured if I thought there was a chance this submission presented a licensing issue, it wouldn't be downloadable.
@Tom Peter: I believe the confusion stems from the fact you have indicated above this is NOT your work. In which case, you don't have the authority to say who can use the track and you are not the person people should be giving credit for its use.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Forgive my oldness, but how would I reach out to you on Discord if we don't have any mutual servers?
Oh, please attribute the artist as "DENZI", or "DENZI Room". I am not the artist, just the submitter and a fan of his. I would pass on your message to him but he's been incommunicado for years.
Yes, please! :) I would love to play it, testing or otherwise.
Yeah, of course! :)
Oh, that's what he fixed? I thought he was talking about removing duplicate posts. Apologies, I didn't even realize the lpc subdomain wasn't working. Thank you for bringing it up.
Not only is lpc.opengameart.org still active, it still mirrors all the latest content. Look:
Yay!
Let me know when you're streaming.
Yes. This particular rule is- despite the frequent use the of the word "(un)ethical" above- actually based on practicality. Bart feels it is more beneficial to retain a reputation of good relationships with artists than it is to insist on the legal and ethical allowances, even if that reputation requires us to give some lattitude when an artist is being less than reasonable. I was skeptical of it at first myself, but the observed result is that we have gained more submissions than we have lost via this rule because artists feel more comfortable submitting knowing they don't have to worry about "donor's remorse".
P.S. And please note this is a rule for OGA. No one should feel they need to adhere to such a weird rule in their own endeavors. The licenses are irrevokable. Enjoy the assets accordingly.
Pages