Yes. That would be ideal. If you take a look at the GitHub for OGA and identify in the site code what may make that visible (and accurate), by all means suggest the code change. For now, I have to determine it manually. :(
Correct. CC-BY 4.0 would be the common license except for the content licensed CC-BY 3.0, which are not adaptable to CC-BY 4.0. However, if they are assets on OGA, it is possible the author preemptively agreed to include the latest version of the CC-BY license "when it becomes available", and now version 4.0 is available.
If you can provide a list of urls to each of the assets used, I will be able to determine if the authors made such an allowance.
The various submissions you see on OGA that list multiple licenses are to indicate that the entire submission can be used under the terms of any one of the licenses listed, whichever the user prefers.
For example, if a submission contains asset 1, 2, and 3, and it lists license A, and license B. That means a developer is allowed to use asset 1, 2, and 3 under the terms of license A if they want... OR they can use asset 1, 2 and 3 under the terms of license B if they prefer. This is not the scenario you are dealing with.
If you want to submit assets where some assets are under license A, and some assets are under license B, you either need to:
split it into multiple submissions, OR...
Adapt compatible licenses to a single license common to all the assets in the submission.
As you said, option 1 would defeat the purpose, so let's look at option 2.
Many licenses can be adapted (changed) to a different license, but the adaptation is usually one-way. For instance. CC0 can be adapted to almost any license you want, including OGA-BY. Similarly, OGA-BY can be adapted to CC-BY. In turn, CC-BY can be adapted to CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA is pretty open, but still the most restrictive license of the four. There are other licenses to consider, but that should give us a place to start.
CC0 -> OGA-BY -> CC-BY -> CC-BY-SA
What licenses are the various parts in your collection of folders? Once we know that, we can figure out if there is a common license you can use to submit them all together.
P.S. the Cabbit collection you mentioned had a problem because- just like you discuss above- it contained multiple assets with various licenses, but it included a license that was not common to all assets in the submission. Asset-1 used OGA-BY and CC-BY, but Asset-2 only used CC-BY. By listing both OGA-BY and CC-BY, a problem arose becuase OGA-BY was not common to both assets, so either the OGA-BY license needed to be removed, or Asset-2 needed to be removed. The latter option was chosen. I doubt you'll need to remove assets to acheive a common license in your case, but we'll see. :)
I can see that virus false positives are a thing for clickteam fusion. That has to be frustrating. I am wondering if there is some way to resolve those errors.
Thank you for the explanation. Once I verify they are indeed false, I can restore those links. Do you still want the topic removed?
I will assume yes if I don't hear back from you today.
@1800thewolf: Yes, there are 3 variations, each with 4 frames of animation. Individually, each of the 3 sprite variants have 4 frames, but the variants go through a 6-frame cycle: 1, 4, 3, 2, 1, none:
The animation is divided into columns, where each new column goes through the 6-frame cycle, and each column is a different variant than the column to each side. So, the first (fully visible) column in Clint's example animation is Variant B. When the next column appears to its right, the new column is Variant C, then Variant A, then B again and so on.
The sprites in each column cycles through the 6-frame animation 1, 4, 3, 2, 1, none, but always staying within that column's variant.
Note also that, although the sprites are 64x64 pixels, the columns are 32 pixels apart, so there is a 16-pixel overlap on each side to get the ice to look like one contiguous chain of ice without actually making any one peice of ice move laterally.
Hopefully that helps you understand how to replicate Clint's example animation above. Let me know if you have other questions.
All three allow later versions.
Yes. That would be ideal. If you take a look at the GitHub for OGA and identify in the site code what may make that visible (and accurate), by all means suggest the code change. For now, I have to determine it manually. :(
Correct. CC-BY 4.0 would be the common license except for the content licensed CC-BY 3.0, which are not adaptable to CC-BY 4.0. However, if they are assets on OGA, it is possible the author preemptively agreed to include the latest version of the CC-BY license "when it becomes available", and now version 4.0 is available.
If you can provide a list of urls to each of the assets used, I will be able to determine if the authors made such an allowance.
The various submissions you see on OGA that list multiple licenses are to indicate that the entire submission can be used under the terms of any one of the licenses listed, whichever the user prefers.
For example, if a submission contains asset 1, 2, and 3, and it lists license A, and license B. That means a developer is allowed to use asset 1, 2, and 3 under the terms of license A if they want... OR they can use asset 1, 2 and 3 under the terms of license B if they prefer. This is not the scenario you are dealing with.
If you want to submit assets where some assets are under license A, and some assets are under license B, you either need to:
As you said, option 1 would defeat the purpose, so let's look at option 2.
Many licenses can be adapted (changed) to a different license, but the adaptation is usually one-way. For instance. CC0 can be adapted to almost any license you want, including OGA-BY. Similarly, OGA-BY can be adapted to CC-BY. In turn, CC-BY can be adapted to CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA is pretty open, but still the most restrictive license of the four. There are other licenses to consider, but that should give us a place to start.
CC0 -> OGA-BY -> CC-BY -> CC-BY-SA
What licenses are the various parts in your collection of folders? Once we know that, we can figure out if there is a common license you can use to submit them all together.
P.S. the Cabbit collection you mentioned had a problem because- just like you discuss above- it contained multiple assets with various licenses, but it included a license that was not common to all assets in the submission. Asset-1 used OGA-BY and CC-BY, but Asset-2 only used CC-BY. By listing both OGA-BY and CC-BY, a problem arose becuase OGA-BY was not common to both assets, so either the OGA-BY license needed to be removed, or Asset-2 needed to be removed. The latter option was chosen. I doubt you'll need to remove assets to acheive a common license in your case, but we'll see. :)
No. Multiple licenses on a submission is not to indicate each license used by the content. More information to follow.
And now under CC0! Woo! Thanks for your generosity, VSG!
Pride well earned!
I can see that virus false positives are a thing for clickteam fusion. That has to be frustrating. I am wondering if there is some way to resolve those errors.
Thank you for the explanation. Once I verify they are indeed false, I can restore those links. Do you still want the topic removed?
I will assume yes if I don't hear back from you today.
That exe is giving some dubious returns. Please do not add that link any more until you are able to explain why it would show up with several threats.
@1800thewolf: Yes, there are 3 variations, each with 4 frames of animation. Individually, each of the 3 sprite variants have 4 frames, but the variants go through a 6-frame cycle: 1, 4, 3, 2, 1, none:
The animation is divided into columns, where each new column goes through the 6-frame cycle, and each column is a different variant than the column to each side. So, the first (fully visible) column in Clint's example animation is Variant B. When the next column appears to its right, the new column is Variant C, then Variant A, then B again and so on.
The sprites in each column cycles through the 6-frame animation 1, 4, 3, 2, 1, none, but always staying within that column's variant.
Note also that, although the sprites are 64x64 pixels, the columns are 32 pixels apart, so there is a 16-pixel overlap on each side to get the ice to look like one contiguous chain of ice without actually making any one peice of ice move laterally.
Hopefully that helps you understand how to replicate Clint's example animation above. Let me know if you have other questions.
Pages