"...when you have stuff ready to re-submit, any thoughts on trickling it out, maybe throttling it to one submission every couple of days or so?..."
Yeah, I don't really like when other new submissions get buried. I think "trickling" submissions may occur naturally, anyway; As I get each category organized, I'll submit that, but it'll take me some time to get the next one up. I'll be sure to space them out intentionally if that isn't the case though.
@dannorder: I dunno, man. I think there is such a thing as orphaned works. If the artist is dead, their artwork (child) is, by definition, orphaned. I don't think the suggestion is to disregard the license or their wishes just because the artist is dead. I thought the discussion was about looking at the license, but also asking for permission anyway just to be extra sure. If the artist is dead, we still adhere to the terms of the license they released it under before they died, but we can't do that extra step of asking their permission "just in case".
EDIT: I guess we're saying the same thing on this, because I actually agree with everything you just said. :)
"Someone is looking through those to see if we want to go back to those original art sources for permission. A lot of those submissions have issues for various reasons."
I knew several of nikita's submissions were questionable, but now that I am going through them in an attempt to get solid permission, I am finding a lot of the ones I thought were ok are riddled with commercial rips or other content the artists didn't intend to be shared risk-free. Nikita's list of viable submissions is smaller than I thought.
Fortunately I got the go-ahead from one artist so far. However, the first artist happens to be DENZI. his set is freaking huge, so organizing the artwork and uploading it is becoming quite a task. Also, it looks like Nikita wasn't really paying attention to what licenses DENZI was specifying. DENZI has some stuff that's CC0, some that's CC-BY-SA, and other stuff under a proprietary license not compatible with OGA. I am only working with the CC0 and CC-BY-SA stuff.
A little off topic, but I am thinking about making several submissions for DENZI's stuff, categorising each submission by style, like "16x16 oblique projection", "32x32 orthogonal view", "64x64 isometric", stuff like that. Then putting all stuff with DENZI's work in it into a DENZI collection. Whadda think?
I reworked a bit of AbiDrew's Gimp file so I could make it into a button with an added intro. Don't know if I like the intro or not. It looked like sara was off by one pixel on some of the frames, so I tweaked that and put her in front of the OGA logo like you guys suggested above to see how it looks.
There are a few extra layers in case anyone wants to change the backdrop into your favorite button/background color.
"As for licenses being removed, I most certainly would not like that one bit, especially since one of the ones that were brought up was the CC0/Public Domain license"
...What? I don't think the removal of CC0 was ever considered. It might have been suggested by a troll, but I think the sun will burn out before CC0 is removed from OGA. Actually, I can't seem to find where it was suggested ANY license be removed. I see where people were saying some assets should be removed because of a licensing conflict, but not any place where the license itself was the target of removal.
GravityGames, are you referencing a recent discussion? Can you point me to the comments about license removal? I'm curious but I'm not finding anything on it.
Disallow derivative works in general? That would invalidate pretty much every license supported by OGA. I would even say OGA encourages derivatives... as long as the terms of the source license are adhered to.
@newera: Groovy. Glad to help. Looks like it isn't your ISP if you were able to get it ok from me. Or at least it's not just your ISP. I'll remove that link now.
Ah. I see. In that case I think the only disagreement is about semantics regarding the word "orphan". I agree with what you're saying.
@capbros:
Yeah, I don't really like when other new submissions get buried. I think "trickling" submissions may occur naturally, anyway; As I get each category organized, I'll submit that, but it'll take me some time to get the next one up. I'll be sure to space them out intentionally if that isn't the case though.
@dannorder: I dunno, man. I think there is such a thing as orphaned works. If the artist is dead, their artwork (child) is, by definition, orphaned. I don't think the suggestion is to disregard the license or their wishes just because the artist is dead. I thought the discussion was about looking at the license, but also asking for permission anyway just to be extra sure. If the artist is dead, we still adhere to the terms of the license they released it under before they died, but we can't do that extra step of asking their permission "just in case".
EDIT: I guess we're saying the same thing on this, because I actually agree with everything you just said. :)
I knew several of nikita's submissions were questionable, but now that I am going through them in an attempt to get solid permission, I am finding a lot of the ones I thought were ok are riddled with commercial rips or other content the artists didn't intend to be shared risk-free. Nikita's list of viable submissions is smaller than I thought.
Fortunately I got the go-ahead from one artist so far. However, the first artist happens to be DENZI. his set is freaking huge, so organizing the artwork and uploading it is becoming quite a task. Also, it looks like Nikita wasn't really paying attention to what licenses DENZI was specifying. DENZI has some stuff that's CC0, some that's CC-BY-SA, and other stuff under a proprietary license not compatible with OGA. I am only working with the CC0 and CC-BY-SA stuff.
A little off topic, but I am thinking about making several submissions for DENZI's stuff, categorising each submission by style, like "16x16 oblique projection", "32x32 orthogonal view", "64x64 isometric", stuff like that. Then putting all stuff with DENZI's work in it into a DENZI collection. Whadda think?
@Malifer: This is what I hear https://youtu.be/XOsQTLG5QuM?t=24
I know this is an old thread, but it might be relevant again: http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/get-it-on-open-game-art-button-for-websites Plus, I really like this logo.
I reworked a bit of AbiDrew's Gimp file so I could make it into a button with an added intro. Don't know if I like the intro or not. It looked like sara was off by one pixel on some of the frames, so I tweaked that and put her in front of the OGA logo like you guys suggested above to see how it looks.
There are a few extra layers in case anyone wants to change the backdrop into your favorite button/background color.
gimp file: https://www.medicinestorm.com/LLC/oga_alt.zip
components:
What about this animated logo?
Check out the discussion: http://opengameart.org/content/animated-opengameart-splash-screen
@GravityGames: Oh. I see. Yeah, I'm guessing that was just hyperbole on Nikita's part(?)
Removal of CC0 is not going to happen. You can be pretty sure the removal of any other licence is super-unlikely as well.
...What? I don't think the removal of CC0 was ever considered. It might have been suggested by a troll, but I think the sun will burn out before CC0 is removed from OGA. Actually, I can't seem to find where it was suggested ANY license be removed. I see where people were saying some assets should be removed because of a licensing conflict, but not any place where the license itself was the target of removal.
GravityGames, are you referencing a recent discussion? Can you point me to the comments about license removal? I'm curious but I'm not finding anything on it.
Disallow derivative works in general? That would invalidate pretty much every license supported by OGA. I would even say OGA encourages derivatives... as long as the terms of the source license are adhered to.
Derivative works of commerical studios and non-free intellectual propery? Yes, that is already explicitly disallowed in the FAQ: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-submittype
@newera: Groovy. Glad to help. Looks like it isn't your ISP if you were able to get it ok from me. Or at least it's not just your ISP. I'll remove that link now.
Pages