My statement about only copyright holders being able to claim greivances is not an assumption. I can't give any official legal advice, and obviously each legal situation is unique and not subject to generalization, but I'll just say I'm very confident of this. Only the artist (a stakeholder in the copyright) can sue you for infringement of their work.
They would be ridiculous to sue you for not distributing source they didn't provide. That may be an assumption, but cautioning against it is a bit like saying "Don't assume your neighbor will not sue you for borrowing the hammer that he never had." :)
I've always interpreted the "preferred format" as the format preferred by the IP owner, in this case, the artist. It may not be the best format for editing, but I beleive the purpose of that statement (at least in part) is to disuade 2nd parties (not the original artist) from taking, say, a png file that's released as GPL and converting it to an overly compressed jpeg, adding a water mark, then redistributing that version of the image to try to satisfy the GPL. GPL's like "nah, dude. That isn't the artist's preferred format."
"That's a dangerous attitude. Also, don't forget that it is not just OGA which might get into trouble for not being able to provide the source for works under the GPL, it's also those who download GPL'ed assets for use in their own works that end up having to bear this burden. The whole point of going to OGA instead of most other "free" image/sound/music sites is that we can be sure that things are properly licensed here."
The thing that sets OGA apart from other foss sites is not so much the guarantee of proper licensing (although that is present) It is the attitude of honoring artists wishes even when the license allows things the artist does not wish. A guarantee of being technically compliant with a license is not what we're about. Only the copyright holder (artist) can claim a greivance on a potential infringement of their works. If the copyright holder only provided an mp3 file, why would they claim greivance against OGA or anyone else for failing to provide the "source" when they themselves haven't provided what they consider the source? Who is going to get anyone "in trouble"? I can't sue capbros for distributing bart's work, especially when bart has given capbros his blessing. This isn't just technically allowed, it's also adhereing to the artist's implicit wishes.
Should artists provide GPL artwork in an easily adaptable format? Absolutely. Can they? not always. Must they? I don't think so. Asking artists for flexible formats is great, but demanding they do so is taking a decent license and twisting it into a bureaucratic mess.
Code? It sounds like pointcache is talking about forking art assets.
What kind of advantages would an automatic branching of artwork provide? Sounds interesting. Derivatives are certainly allowed, but it's currently a somewhat manual process; "here is some new art. I derived it from Kenny's set. Mention me, and also Kenny, in the credits" sort of thing.
I should specify this is not because OGA wants to cater exclusively to commercial projects (although being useful to such projects is a great thing!) It is really more about NC (non-commercial) licenses having the side effect of being very cumbersome for free and open projects, which is definitely something this site is all about. :)
If there is some component not compatible with commercial use, you probably shouldn't submit it to OGA. All licenses on OGA allow commercial use. Sorry.
@claudeb: No I had not seen those. I think I had skipped them because of a project incompatability with GPL. :( I guess I should stipulate that as well...
@Joth: if you do end up making sound effects, might they be CC licensed? Totally your choice, of course. Just hoping. :)
I feel like the suggestions I gave were pretty generic sound effects, but either way, I assure you people will use them. :D
"However, all that said, search has been broken for far too long, I think it'd very hard to argue that the current situation is working and/or healthy for the long term."
Oh, for sure. I'm researching as much as I can about drupal's cron indexing problem and Apache Solr. I want that fixed!
Wasn't trying to be critical of your guys's comments. Was going for reassuring. D'oh!
There seems to be some assumption that no one is working on anything. That isn't the case. There is more than one admin with access to the code, but the problems are complicated. I don't believe the coders are so busy they aren't doing anything at all, but they are limited on how much time they're able to dedicate to the issues.
The problem is less about access to the code and more about understanding the site's code as a whole, being able to resolve the problems without causing more. It's like trying to fix a car's engine while it's flying down the highway at 120 KPH (75 in freedom units). Teaching more coders how it all works so they can contribute to the solution is difficult because training them takes away from the already limited time admins have available to work on the issues directly.
I'm chomping at the bit myself to get into the code and start fixing stuff, but I'm trying to give them the space to get out of the rut. Stuff is going to get fixed. :) It just might take a while longer. Your commitments and willingness to help where you can are nice to see.
My statement about only copyright holders being able to claim greivances is not an assumption. I can't give any official legal advice, and obviously each legal situation is unique and not subject to generalization, but I'll just say I'm very confident of this. Only the artist (a stakeholder in the copyright) can sue you for infringement of their work.
They would be ridiculous to sue you for not distributing source they didn't provide. That may be an assumption, but cautioning against it is a bit like saying "Don't assume your neighbor will not sue you for borrowing the hammer that he never had." :)
I've always interpreted the "preferred format" as the format preferred by the IP owner, in this case, the artist. It may not be the best format for editing, but I beleive the purpose of that statement (at least in part) is to disuade 2nd parties (not the original artist) from taking, say, a png file that's released as GPL and converting it to an overly compressed jpeg, adding a water mark, then redistributing that version of the image to try to satisfy the GPL. GPL's like "nah, dude. That isn't the artist's preferred format."
The thing that sets OGA apart from other foss sites is not so much the guarantee of proper licensing (although that is present) It is the attitude of honoring artists wishes even when the license allows things the artist does not wish. A guarantee of being technically compliant with a license is not what we're about. Only the copyright holder (artist) can claim a greivance on a potential infringement of their works. If the copyright holder only provided an mp3 file, why would they claim greivance against OGA or anyone else for failing to provide the "source" when they themselves haven't provided what they consider the source? Who is going to get anyone "in trouble"? I can't sue capbros for distributing bart's work, especially when bart has given capbros his blessing. This isn't just technically allowed, it's also adhereing to the artist's implicit wishes.
Should artists provide GPL artwork in an easily adaptable format? Absolutely. Can they? not always. Must they? I don't think so. Asking artists for flexible formats is great, but demanding they do so is taking a decent license and twisting it into a bureaucratic mess.
p0ss, that popular art thing is pretty great. I'm bookmarking it for my own use, but I hope it sees the front page some day.
Code? It sounds like pointcache is talking about forking art assets.
What kind of advantages would an automatic branching of artwork provide? Sounds interesting. Derivatives are certainly allowed, but it's currently a somewhat manual process; "here is some new art. I derived it from Kenny's set. Mention me, and also Kenny, in the credits" sort of thing.
I should specify this is not because OGA wants to cater exclusively to commercial projects (although being useful to such projects is a great thing!) It is really more about NC (non-commercial) licenses having the side effect of being very cumbersome for free and open projects, which is definitely something this site is all about. :)
If there is some component not compatible with commercial use, you probably shouldn't submit it to OGA. All licenses on OGA allow commercial use. Sorry.
No no, if course not. I spoke to botanic and won't be touching the code without his direction. I'm just gearing up so I understand it all first.
@claudeb: No I had not seen those. I think I had skipped them because of a project incompatability with GPL. :( I guess I should stipulate that as well...
@Joth: if you do end up making sound effects, might they be CC licensed? Totally your choice, of course. Just hoping. :)
I feel like the suggestions I gave were pretty generic sound effects, but either way, I assure you people will use them. :D
Oh, for sure. I'm researching as much as I can about drupal's cron indexing problem and Apache Solr. I want that fixed!
Wasn't trying to be critical of your guys's comments. Was going for reassuring. D'oh!
There seems to be some assumption that no one is working on anything. That isn't the case. There is more than one admin with access to the code, but the problems are complicated. I don't believe the coders are so busy they aren't doing anything at all, but they are limited on how much time they're able to dedicate to the issues.
The problem is less about access to the code and more about understanding the site's code as a whole, being able to resolve the problems without causing more. It's like trying to fix a car's engine while it's flying down the highway at 120 KPH (75 in freedom units). Teaching more coders how it all works so they can contribute to the solution is difficult because training them takes away from the already limited time admins have available to work on the issues directly.
I'm chomping at the bit myself to get into the code and start fixing stuff, but I'm trying to give them the space to get out of the rut. Stuff is going to get fixed. :) It just might take a while longer. Your commitments and willingness to help where you can are nice to see.
Pages