It's true name-calling is not appropriate here. Looks like it has stopped voluntarily, though, so that's a non-issue at this point. (I think an apology would help, but at this point I'm not sure it would really mend any relationships, so it may be best to just put that to rest.)
And, believe it or not, MNDV can ask that others not use his/her code; (s)he retains copyright to that code unless a specific license was agreed upon. Even then it sounds like the conditions upon which that code license was to be made available has been canceled by both parties. When you don't want to purchase a product any longer and you take your money back, you don't get to keep the product. It seem MNDV has clearly indicated which code is no longer licensed to this project. "Adapting" that code to another language or framework is inadvisable since it would be a derivative, not "starting from scratch".
...Which also seems like a non-issue since everyone wants to start from scratch anyway. A lot of talk about things that don't really apply any longer, people.
MNDV is free to warn everyone about his/her own experience on this project as well as revoke license to services-renderd-but-not-compensated.
Tyrantcomics is free to defend his/her position, tell his/her side of the experience, as well as invite others to participate in the project and replace components (s)he feels were inadequately rendered.
Everyone else is free to decide for themselves if they want to work on this project or not.
michalis is right; the license.txt found inside the download package is contradictory. The terms in the package are not compatible with CC0, nor any other license accepted on OGA.
@software_atelier: would you be willing to remove the license.txt or replace it with the standard CC0 language? Until then I have to mark this as having a licensing issue. Thank you for understanding.
My apologies. Ripping the pis out of you was not my intent in the slightest. I actually meant to support your request that games be playable by you. If i was going after anyone, it was the people submitting entries that weren't easily playable, like the roblox one.
Sorry, my statements were really meant as agreement with the need for participants to submit something accessable. :/
I wonder if it really needs to be a requirement. I mean, if the people (and specifically the host judge, who is using a Windows machine) can't play it, you're kinda disqualified automatically (or at least have a really terrible chance of winning) since, if it can't be played, the other requirements can't be verified.
Is it too harsh/confusing to say something like this? "use whatever you want, but make sure what you use is playable by most people, because...
@Spring: True, but if the author requests the optional GPL attribution, the examples would satisfy it, yes? I generally use the one-line attribution format shown in the how-to-credit FAQ, but WithTheLove's examples may be more readable I think.
EDIT: I guess the optional part of GPL attribution doesn't matter since rule 3 is saying give credit even if not required. Nevermind. I think I misunderstood what Spring was referencing(?)
"you must include a credit even if the asset is your own creation" could probably be included in the first line of rule 3: "3) You must credit the Author of the assets used, even if it's not required by the license, even if the asset is your own creation"
What do you think about moving the "you must indicate modifications" line into the credits must include bullet points?
I like the credit examples, though it wasn't immediately clear there was 2 examples, I thought it was a single complicated example
Derivatives: all OGA licenses permit derivatives, so I think this part could be simplified to "When modifying existing art, please be sure to credit the original author and share your derivatives back on OpenGameArt.org. Trivial derivatives(scaling, re-coloring, outlining) do not need to be shared back to OpenGameArt.org"
a lot of new OGA visitors are intimidated by the licensing. I think it may be a good idea to let everyone know the OGA community is available and eager to help everyone with any questions they may have about licensing/derivatives/attribution. Maybe a link to a specific forum thread for such questions (or just the game jam thread)
I'll team up with you, Saliv. I'm a beginner artist but master programmer. (I have a full time job, so time is my biggest weakness.) Do you have a game idea in mind?
heh! :) That seems like a question you've asked before. Why would there be a problem with fictional politics?
It's true name-calling is not appropriate here. Looks like it has stopped voluntarily, though, so that's a non-issue at this point. (I think an apology would help, but at this point I'm not sure it would really mend any relationships, so it may be best to just put that to rest.)
And, believe it or not, MNDV can ask that others not use his/her code; (s)he retains copyright to that code unless a specific license was agreed upon. Even then it sounds like the conditions upon which that code license was to be made available has been canceled by both parties. When you don't want to purchase a product any longer and you take your money back, you don't get to keep the product. It seem MNDV has clearly indicated which code is no longer licensed to this project. "Adapting" that code to another language or framework is inadvisable since it would be a derivative, not "starting from scratch".
...Which also seems like a non-issue since everyone wants to start from scratch anyway. A lot of talk about things that don't really apply any longer, people.
michalis is right; the license.txt found inside the download package is contradictory. The terms in the package are not compatible with CC0, nor any other license accepted on OGA.
@software_atelier: would you be willing to remove the license.txt or replace it with the standard CC0 language?
Until then I have to mark this as having a licensing issue.Thank you for understanding.EDIT: fixed, thanks! :)
Character creation:
Glass of water:
My apologies. Ripping the pis out of you was not my intent in the slightest. I actually meant to support your request that games be playable by you. If i was going after anyone, it was the people submitting entries that weren't easily playable, like the roblox one.
Sorry, my statements were really meant as agreement with the need for participants to submit something accessable. :/
I wonder if it really needs to be a requirement. I mean, if the people (and specifically the host judge, who is using a Windows machine) can't play it, you're kinda disqualified automatically (or at least have a really terrible chance of winning) since, if it can't be played, the other requirements can't be verified.
Is it too harsh/confusing to say something like this? "use whatever you want, but make sure what you use is playable by most people, because...
@WithTheLove: good points
@Spring: True, but if the author requests the optional GPL attribution, the examples would satisfy it, yes? I generally use the one-line attribution format shown in the how-to-credit FAQ, but WithTheLove's examples may be more readable I think.
EDIT: I guess the optional part of GPL attribution doesn't matter since rule 3 is saying give credit even if not required. Nevermind. I think I misunderstood what Spring was referencing(?)
Yeah, looks good!
I think rule 3 could benefit from simplification.
Take with a grain of salt. :)
I'll team up with you, Saliv. I'm a beginner artist but master programmer. (I have a full time job, so time is my biggest weakness.) Do you have a game idea in mind?
Pages