I agree repeatedly uploading new versions of the same asset makes things confusing. I recommend submitting an asset, then- when it needs to be updated with a newer version- clicking on the EDIT tab and replacing the old downloadable files with the new version. After that, leave a comment on your own submission indicating what was changed.
This will keep the asset as a single submission people can return to consistently. Anyone who has also commented on the submission will be notified automatically something is new or changed.
Thank you. This is very helpful. There are a lot of tips out there for getting your game greenlit, but none seem to hit on what it's like to go through the experience.
I think it's interesting that TheBlackSword had a rather negative experience with publishers but Capbros had a very positive experience. Pretty telling; pick your publisher carefully.
Speaking of, how does that work? I know Capbros' publisher approached him, not the other way around, but that doesn't seem like it's the typical scenario. Has anyone (successfully) approached a publisher to form a relationship? And if so, how was it done.
@Capbros: how did Flying Interactive discover your game? Was the game already on Steam Greenlight, or did they find it through some other channel? Did they mention why they chose to approach you (and not some other game)? Obviously your game is great (seriously, it's great. I never left a comment before or told you so, but yeah; it's fun) but what drew their attention?
Despite the heartache outlined above, I find this all very encouraging. :)
Could I bother you guys to make a post outlining what happens in the "geenlight gauntlet"? I think a lot of people would be very interested to know what's involved and what to expect.
I think we're saying the same thing for the most part, actually. I just said it stupidly.
I can relicense something that is cc0 to be CC-BY-SA. I don't even have to change it. But no one would care, because the CC0 version is still available as CC0. It's kinda like if there was a "free lemonade" stand on the street. I could ask for a few free cups, then use it to open another lemonade stand right next door, but sell it for $5. No one's going to buy my lemonade when it's free right next door, but I'm still ALLOWED to sell it.
Like you said, I can't force anyone to follow my lead. Like I said, people can just use the CC0 version and disregard the identical relicensed version. Nor could I claim it was mine, but that isn't something I was suggesting, only relicensing it. My point about deviating from the original asset was saying, "no one is going to bother buying my lemonade unless it's different enough from the free stuff for people to be willing to fork over 5 bucks for it."
I really just misread "to be elligible for a new copyright." to say "to be elligible for a new license." my bad. :)
EDIT: I am not condoning the taking of free lemonade in order to resell it for a profit. This is all just for the sake of argument, not ethics.
Not for CC0 (the license OP was referring to). You can relicense that without changing the asset at all. That is generally ineffective since people can just use the CC0 version (which still exists in perpetuity) and disregard the identical relicensed version. So, really someone would only need to deviate from the original asset enough for others to take notice of it despite the more restrictive license.
I should point out HenrikoMagnifico has indicated he considers the issue concluded, so continuing to argue here what can or should be done, ethically or legally, is probably not going to make much difference over what has already been stated.
...On the other hand, I did just respond to a thread I feel needs no further responses. :P
^Yeah, actually capbro's post is more thourough and helpful than the FAQ link. I know I put a "TL;DR:" but in order to get a real answer to your question, you're going to have to do some reading.
TL;DR: yes, but additional action may be required depending on the license.
Check out this FAQ entry: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary It covers the "additional action" that may be required for each license pretty well. Nothing too scary; just stuff like "credit the author and share the stuff you make with it" is the most strenuous thing you'd have to do to comply with the license, but a lot of the specifics depend on the details of your project. If that doesn't clear up your question, please do not hesitate to ask for more clarification by replying here. :)
No. Updates do not get put back on the 'latest art' list.
Welcome!
I agree repeatedly uploading new versions of the same asset makes things confusing. I recommend submitting an asset, then- when it needs to be updated with a newer version- clicking on the EDIT tab and replacing the old downloadable files with the new version. After that, leave a comment on your own submission indicating what was changed.
This will keep the asset as a single submission people can return to consistently. Anyone who has also commented on the submission will be notified automatically something is new or changed.
You should be able to put the files inside a .zip file. That should upload ok.
Thank you. This is very helpful. There are a lot of tips out there for getting your game greenlit, but none seem to hit on what it's like to go through the experience.
I think it's interesting that TheBlackSword had a rather negative experience with publishers but Capbros had a very positive experience. Pretty telling; pick your publisher carefully.
Speaking of, how does that work? I know Capbros' publisher approached him, not the other way around, but that doesn't seem like it's the typical scenario. Has anyone (successfully) approached a publisher to form a relationship? And if so, how was it done.
@Capbros: how did Flying Interactive discover your game? Was the game already on Steam Greenlight, or did they find it through some other channel? Did they mention why they chose to approach you (and not some other game)? Obviously your game is great (seriously, it's great. I never left a comment before or told you so, but yeah; it's fun) but what drew their attention?
Despite the heartache outlined above, I find this all very encouraging. :)
Could I bother you guys to make a post outlining what happens in the "geenlight gauntlet"? I think a lot of people would be very interested to know what's involved and what to expect.
I think we're saying the same thing for the most part, actually. I just said it stupidly.
I can relicense something that is cc0 to be CC-BY-SA. I don't even have to change it. But no one would care, because the CC0 version is still available as CC0. It's kinda like if there was a "free lemonade" stand on the street. I could ask for a few free cups, then use it to open another lemonade stand right next door, but sell it for $5. No one's going to buy my lemonade when it's free right next door, but I'm still ALLOWED to sell it.
Like you said, I can't force anyone to follow my lead. Like I said, people can just use the CC0 version and disregard the identical relicensed version. Nor could I claim it was mine, but that isn't something I was suggesting, only relicensing it. My point about deviating from the original asset was saying, "no one is going to bother buying my lemonade unless it's different enough from the free stuff for people to be willing to fork over 5 bucks for it."
I really just misread "to be elligible for a new copyright." to say "to be elligible for a new license." my bad. :)
EDIT: I am not condoning the taking of free lemonade in order to resell it for a profit. This is all just for the sake of argument, not ethics.
Not for CC0 (the license OP was referring to). You can relicense that without changing the asset at all. That is generally ineffective since people can just use the CC0 version (which still exists in perpetuity) and disregard the identical relicensed version. So, really someone would only need to deviate from the original asset enough for others to take notice of it despite the more restrictive license.
I should point out HenrikoMagnifico has indicated he considers the issue concluded, so continuing to argue here what can or should be done, ethically or legally, is probably not going to make much difference over what has already been stated.
...On the other hand, I did just respond to a thread I feel needs no further responses. :P
@Ichabodh: cyanowl has licensed these as CC0, already granting you permission to use the sprite templates for base models or anything else. :)
^Yeah, actually capbro's post is more thourough and helpful than the FAQ link. I know I put a "TL;DR:" but in order to get a real answer to your question, you're going to have to do some reading.
TL;DR: yes, but additional action may be required depending on the license.
Check out this FAQ entry: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary It covers the "additional action" that may be required for each license pretty well. Nothing too scary; just stuff like "credit the author and share the stuff you make with it" is the most strenuous thing you'd have to do to comply with the license, but a lot of the specifics depend on the details of your project. If that doesn't clear up your question, please do not hesitate to ask for more clarification by replying here. :)
Pages