The assets here on OGA that indicate a CC0 license do not forbid reselling. You should probably make contributions to add value if you plan to resell assets found here though. Just scraping the site to flip free assets for a quick buck is pretty rude, but it doesn't sound like that's your plan.
If the submitter stated the assets on their website cannot be resold, then the assets on their website are NOT cc0 licensed. They may be a separate "premium" version of the assets found here... Or the submitter may simply be mistaken about CC0. If resale is forbidden, then it isn't actually a CC0 license. Assets found on OGA should not be treated as the same as assets that look similar elsewhere. That author's assets on OGA are CC0, regardless of what other sites say about separate copies hosted elsewhere.
Whelp, I'll do my best to answer your questions, but this topic has been discussed to death on these forums. You say you've reviewed those discussions. If reading all those threads didn't answer your questions, it is unlikely there is anything anyone can add to it to give a more comfortable response.
...understand that both CC-BY-SA and GPL licenses are problematic to use in a close-sourced commercial game, because it is unclear whether the sharealike clause applies only to the art piece being used, or to the whole project, even though there is a legal separation between the source code and the art.
I don't believe that is the case for CC-BY-SA. I don't know for GPL. In consulting with my own attorney, the only way a project's code (closed source or otherwise) would have to inherit the CC-BY-SA license from art assets is if the code itself were a derivative of the artwork. I'm not even sure how you would take art and somehow transform and adapt into being functional code, but I suspect drugs would have to be involved. That being said, my attorney was discussing my own project and its very specific circumstances. Paranoia may compel you to seek your own legal counsel.
1. What kind of proof do I need that I received permission from the artist (in case there is a protest afterwards) ?...
None. You already have it. They released thier assets under the CC-BY-SA license. Beyond that, a simple instant message or email saying "sure you can use it in your closed-source project" is sufficient. Beyond that? If you don't trust the author to not go back on their word, and are not willing to accept the legal terms of the irrevokable license by itself, I'm not sure you're ever going to have a sufficient "proof". People can sue you for any reason. It doesn't mean they'll win, but a scenario where an author goes back on their word suggests they are out to get you anyway. No amount of agreement or proof will disuade such people from giving you greif. To my knowledge, that has never happened with authors on OGA. If it did, they would be banned and their artwork removed; We don't suffer copyright trolls here.
That being said, there are some authors who prefer that their CC-BY-SA assets are not used in commercial projects. The courts' interpretation of the license takes precedence, so any disagreement would be unlikely to come out against you, but as you may have noticed, we're more about respect for our artists than we are about "don't worry no one will sue you", so it's definitely a good idea to ask them outright. That isn't always feasible and it isn't required for the use of the assets, but if you're paranoid about that sort of thing, it can help assure everyone has a mutual understanding.
...I found in this forum that I need to sign a Release Agreement,...
Where? Where on these forums was that said? I think I need some context in order to answer that question.
... I would like to ask OGA for authorization. Does OGA have the authority to allow me to use the CC-BY-SA assets from the website for my game ? Or do I have to contact every artist individually ?
No, and No. OGA doesn't have that authority because OGA is not the copyright holder. However, you do not need to contact every artist individually because they have already given you permission to use CC-BY-SA assets from the website for your game. If you mean "allow me to use the CC-BY-SA assets, but under different terms" like CC0 or something, then yes you will need to ask each artist for permission to use the assets under any terms other than the licenses already listed.
Note that in the case of LPC assets specifically, most of the artists have already included OGA-BY as one of the available licenses. Any LPC assets that lists OGA-BY are free of this kind of confusion about Share Alike clause infecting code.
3. I have read that CC-BY-SA is safe for open-source non commercial games, but NOT safe for commercial games. Is it only because commercial games are close-sourced so they cannot release their entire project under an open source license ?
Again, where? Where did you read that? In all likelihood that is due to a misunderstanding of Share Alike affecting code when the code is super unlikely to be a derivative of artwork. Non-commercial games are just as capable of violating the terms of CC-BY-SA as commercial ones:
Firstly, it is possible to have an open source game that is still commercial. Minecraft java-edition, for instance is open-source. It is not openly licensed, but the source is easy to view. Yes, I know that isn't what people generally mean when they say "open source" but the fact remains open-source does not mean non-commercial.
Secondly, being open-source or even open-licensed does not make the project automatically compliant with the CC-BY-SA terms. If your game is licensed MIT, but you never indicate the art assets are CC-BY-SA, or if you release derivatives of the assets as MIT or BSD instead of CC-BY-SA, or if you fail to give proper attribution for the assets? Well, then your open-source-libre-license-non-commercial project just violated the license terms.
Conversely, closed source commercial games are fully capable of being compliant with the license. If the source is closed but the assets (and derivatives of those assets) are openly available, clearly marked CC-BY-SA, and properly attributed, then all is well.
Hope that helps. If not, further questions are welcome.
Here is fine. You can also click the "Report Spam" button next to the submission and post a comment on it briefly indicating what the issue is. Or PM one of the admins, like myself. Condsidering you haven't actually reported the submission in your post I gather you want to do it privately?
The only submission you have visited recently has only one external link, and it does not appear to be compromized in any way.
Ad farm. They like to clone/redirect sites with lots of traffic and insert ads and trash in all the links to generate revenue off of people who end up on page 5 of google searches.
I agree: it is always ethical for anyone to reshare anyone's else's work (that is released under a free/libre license) even without asking. I hesitate to say "even against the author's will" because it depends on if the author shared it, then changed their mind vs. the author didn't share it, someone else did... or the "author" shared it but didn't have the authority to do so (derivatives, etc)
"...it doesn't consider the in-depth consequences..."
Such as? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I suspect the consequences are shallower that expected. An author's request to remove legitimately shared art does not halt anyone from continuing to use it. It only halts people from continuing to get it from OGA. It is still listed in every user's download collection (who had already obtained it) and is legally and ethically usable to everyone who aquired it elsewhere or here-but-earlier. It doesn't even halt people from re-sharing the assets as a derivative here on OGA. That rule is not a statement or stance about ethical use of assets, it is a choice made by the admins to promote good will with authors.
A parable: A young troubled teenaged girl is struggling with the vigors of life. Her parents and teachers, a bit overbearing but well-meaning, send her to a therapist. She hesitates to share how she feels with the therapist, because she has suffered undue consequences for sharing with others before. They all were "acting in her best interest", they worked for the greater good. Their actions weren't bad or wrong neccessarily, but the consequences were never-the-less undesireable to the young woman.
The therapist assures her that anything she says is kept in confidence and no one else will hear about the conversation. She opens up and shares her feelings of self harm and other dark things.
The parents and teachers come to the therapist and ask what she talked about. "I can't tell you; it is priveleged information." They insist that the therapist has an obligation to share what was discussed if it could prevent the young woman from harming herself! If they don't know how she feels, how can they help her!?
The point is not that depression and self-harm is an allegory for open culture. It is this: If authors think we will share their content even when they do not want us to, even if it is the ethical thing to do, they will choose instead never to share with us in the first place out of fear of the undesireable consequences they may face later when it is no longer within their control.
There have been about 20-50 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that were removed at the author's request. This rule has caused the loss of 20-50 good assets.
There have been about 200-500 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that would not otherwise have ever been shared here on OGA, except for this rule. The artists hesitated to share, but when they were told they could request them taken down, they had no reason to balk at phantom fears. They submitted, people loved the art, their fears of misuse were seen to be unfounded, and the authors decided to share even more. This rule has caused the net gain of 150 (200 less 50) to 450 (500 less 50) great assets to be shared openly. This rule pays more than it costs. Figures are estimates based on my 10+ years of administration here, but they are not hyperbole. Again, this is not to convince anyone to change how they feel about open/libre licensing and sharing. I am 100% in agreement with the stance of irrevokable licenses are legal and ethical in perpetuity. This rule is not intended as a philosophy or to be adopted by individuals. It is specific to OGA. It has reason and considerable forethought for its implementation.
Just wanted to clarify that we aren't anti-FLOSS and are aware of the differences between having this rule as a volutary choice vs. any legal adherence to license or ethical quibbles about it.
The assets here on OGA that indicate a CC0 license do not forbid reselling. You should probably make contributions to add value if you plan to resell assets found here though. Just scraping the site to flip free assets for a quick buck is pretty rude, but it doesn't sound like that's your plan.
If the submitter stated the assets on their website cannot be resold, then the assets on their website are NOT cc0 licensed. They may be a separate "premium" version of the assets found here... Or the submitter may simply be mistaken about CC0. If resale is forbidden, then it isn't actually a CC0 license. Assets found on OGA should not be treated as the same as assets that look similar elsewhere. That author's assets on OGA are CC0, regardless of what other sites say about separate copies hosted elsewhere.
Whelp, I'll do my best to answer your questions, but this topic has been discussed to death on these forums. You say you've reviewed those discussions. If reading all those threads didn't answer your questions, it is unlikely there is anything anyone can add to it to give a more comfortable response.
I don't believe that is the case for CC-BY-SA. I don't know for GPL. In consulting with my own attorney, the only way a project's code (closed source or otherwise) would have to inherit the CC-BY-SA license from art assets is if the code itself were a derivative of the artwork. I'm not even sure how you would take art and somehow transform and adapt into being functional code, but I suspect drugs would have to be involved. That being said, my attorney was discussing my own project and its very specific circumstances. Paranoia may compel you to seek your own legal counsel.
None. You already have it. They released thier assets under the CC-BY-SA license. Beyond that, a simple instant message or email saying "sure you can use it in your closed-source project" is sufficient. Beyond that? If you don't trust the author to not go back on their word, and are not willing to accept the legal terms of the irrevokable license by itself, I'm not sure you're ever going to have a sufficient "proof". People can sue you for any reason. It doesn't mean they'll win, but a scenario where an author goes back on their word suggests they are out to get you anyway. No amount of agreement or proof will disuade such people from giving you greif. To my knowledge, that has never happened with authors on OGA. If it did, they would be banned and their artwork removed; We don't suffer copyright trolls here.
That being said, there are some authors who prefer that their CC-BY-SA assets are not used in commercial projects. The courts' interpretation of the license takes precedence, so any disagreement would be unlikely to come out against you, but as you may have noticed, we're more about respect for our artists than we are about "don't worry no one will sue you", so it's definitely a good idea to ask them outright. That isn't always feasible and it isn't required for the use of the assets, but if you're paranoid about that sort of thing, it can help assure everyone has a mutual understanding.
Where? Where on these forums was that said? I think I need some context in order to answer that question.
No, and No. OGA doesn't have that authority because OGA is not the copyright holder. However, you do not need to contact every artist individually because they have already given you permission to use CC-BY-SA assets from the website for your game. If you mean "allow me to use the CC-BY-SA assets, but under different terms" like CC0 or something, then yes you will need to ask each artist for permission to use the assets under any terms other than the licenses already listed.
Note that in the case of LPC assets specifically, most of the artists have already included OGA-BY as one of the available licenses. Any LPC assets that lists OGA-BY are free of this kind of confusion about Share Alike clause infecting code.
Again, where? Where did you read that? In all likelihood that is due to a misunderstanding of Share Alike affecting code when the code is super unlikely to be a derivative of artwork. Non-commercial games are just as capable of violating the terms of CC-BY-SA as commercial ones:
Firstly, it is possible to have an open source game that is still commercial. Minecraft java-edition, for instance is open-source. It is not openly licensed, but the source is easy to view. Yes, I know that isn't what people generally mean when they say "open source" but the fact remains open-source does not mean non-commercial.
Secondly, being open-source or even open-licensed does not make the project automatically compliant with the CC-BY-SA terms. If your game is licensed MIT, but you never indicate the art assets are CC-BY-SA, or if you release derivatives of the assets as MIT or BSD instead of CC-BY-SA, or if you fail to give proper attribution for the assets? Well, then your open-source-libre-license-non-commercial project just violated the license terms.
Conversely, closed source commercial games are fully capable of being compliant with the license. If the source is closed but the assets (and derivatives of those assets) are openly available, clearly marked CC-BY-SA, and properly attributed, then all is well.
Hope that helps. If not, further questions are welcome.
Looks like it's just called a "Power Stablizer" on the product website.
"Uninterruptible Power Supply"?
Ok, I tracked down the content at both of the above (dead) links. They are preserved and shared here:
Curses and Conundrums, SalsaGal! You sent me down a rabbit hole!
I'll be updating links with archival references and also submitting the missing sound effects libraries shortly.
Here is fine. You can also click the "Report Spam" button next to the submission and post a comment on it briefly indicating what the issue is. Or PM one of the admins, like myself. Condsidering you haven't actually reported the submission in your post I gather you want to do it privately?
The only submission you have visited recently has only one external link, and it does not appear to be compromized in any way.
Ad farm. They like to clone/redirect sites with lots of traffic and insert ads and trash in all the links to generate revenue off of people who end up on page 5 of google searches.
This is the correct forum: the question is in regards to the FLARE engine's behavior to a custom script.
I agree: it is always ethical for anyone to reshare anyone's else's work (that is released under a free/libre license) even without asking. I hesitate to say "even against the author's will" because it depends on if the author shared it, then changed their mind vs. the author didn't share it, someone else did... or the "author" shared it but didn't have the authority to do so (derivatives, etc)
Such as? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I suspect the consequences are shallower that expected. An author's request to remove legitimately shared art does not halt anyone from continuing to use it. It only halts people from continuing to get it from OGA. It is still listed in every user's download collection (who had already obtained it) and is legally and ethically usable to everyone who aquired it elsewhere or here-but-earlier. It doesn't even halt people from re-sharing the assets as a derivative here on OGA. That rule is not a statement or stance about ethical use of assets, it is a choice made by the admins to promote good will with authors.
The point is not that depression and self-harm is an allegory for open culture. It is this: If authors think we will share their content even when they do not want us to, even if it is the ethical thing to do, they will choose instead never to share with us in the first place out of fear of the undesireable consequences they may face later when it is no longer within their control.
There have been about 20-50 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that were removed at the author's request. This rule has caused the loss of 20-50 good assets.
There have been about 200-500 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that would not otherwise have ever been shared here on OGA, except for this rule. The artists hesitated to share, but when they were told they could request them taken down, they had no reason to balk at phantom fears. They submitted, people loved the art, their fears of misuse were seen to be unfounded, and the authors decided to share even more. This rule has caused the net gain of 150 (200 less 50) to 450 (500 less 50) great assets to be shared openly. This rule pays more than it costs. Figures are estimates based on my 10+ years of administration here, but they are not hyperbole. Again, this is not to convince anyone to change how they feel about open/libre licensing and sharing. I am 100% in agreement with the stance of irrevokable licenses are legal and ethical in perpetuity. This rule is not intended as a philosophy or to be adopted by individuals. It is specific to OGA. It has reason and considerable forethought for its implementation.
Just wanted to clarify that we aren't anti-FLOSS and are aware of the differences between having this rule as a volutary choice vs. any legal adherence to license or ethical quibbles about it.
Pages