Confusing copyright with trademark, actually. It's true there is no issue with having those models in this pack, but they shouldn't be called "Lightsaber", because that term (in this context) is actually trademarked.
I haven't fully read through the legal text yet, but my impressions from doing a "deep skim" are as follows:
the organizers of the FAL license compare it to the GPL-but-for-artwork. However, it seems functionally closer to CC-BY-SA.
Like CC-BY-SA (and unlike GPL) the FAL license appears to apply to sets of assets independent of other sets in the same project. In other words, FAL assets and derivatives of FAL assets, must be shared under the same license, but other assets used along side them in the same project are not necessarily subject to FAL terms.
The reciprocity clause of the FAL implies that FAL licensed works can be adapted to CC-BY-SA licensed works, and vice versa. However, that last part is contingent on how FSF feels about FAL. I'm curious to know what the CC group thinks about FAL.
CAUTION: Unlike CC licenses, it appears FAL is revokable. "Only" under specifc circumstances, but they are things like "object[ion] to any distortion, mutilation or other modification" such that these uses are deemed to be "prejudicial to [the author's] honor or reputation". This is fairly reasonable, but who's interpretation is determining that? When I license my content as CC*, I forfeit complaining about people using my content in things I consider disreputable, like smut. However, what if I morally object to any form of ecological destruction, and someone uses my assets to portray forests burning down or nuclear war? Am I able to surprise-revoke a developer's usage of my assets based on their game's modern RTS theme?
CAUTION: the FAL license becomes instantly void and revoked if the user fails to adhere to the terms like listing author, asset title, url, etc. That also seems reasonable, but it suffers from the same vulnerability to copyright trolls that some versions of CC-BY* (especially 2.0 and earlier) had. see https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/turns-out-there-are-copyleft-trolls-now. Again, the stuff on OGA is scanned for this kind of nonsense, but that doesn't help others out there who might not know to be quite so careful about attribution.
FAL is structured as a contract more than a copyright license. I don't know how contract law works in France, but in general a contract requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual intent to be bound. Most of those are met, but acceptance and mutual intent to be bound are ... questionable. How does one agree to be bound with a second party when the second party is no one in particular, or potentially everyone, or anyone that decides to use the asset but remains unknown to the first party?
Conclusion: IMHO, FAL seems like a decent copyleft license. However, it has a few disadvantages (only minor, really) over CC-BY* licenses and also no real benefits over CC-BY* licenses that I could see. I don't see any harm in using FAL assets, even alongside CC and GPL licensed assets, but I also don't see any reason to seek out FAL assets or projects specifically.
Collections are made by individual users for their own purposes. It is up to them what they consider "compatible" for their own project. It is ultimately a matter of opinion. You are welcome to make your own collection and only add what you consider compatible art. Just be sure to let others see it so we can criticize your interpretation of compatible as well. :P
Haha! Just kidding about that last part. Another thing you can do is leave a comment on the collection or contact the owner of the collection and share your ideas about curation. Many of them welcome suggestions, especially when their collection is meant as a community project to be shared.
They were at different times, but all referring to the same submission. It is fine to make followup comments on your announcement forum post, but it would be better not to make a new announcement thread every time there is a change or new content. However, as I said, I am happy to bump old submissions to the front page if you're adding new content to them. That is even what this thread is for: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/bump-requests
Would you like me to do that for the cold valleys submission?
If you would like me to bump your submission when it recieves significant updates, I am happy to do so. However, posting 4 new forum topics on the same pack is a bit spammy. Please keep new posts relevant to new content.
@davididev: it's CC0; technically having no attribution at all is enough attribution. On the other hand, giving attribution when it isn't required is certainly a nice thing to do. I would recommend using the following instead so it is not just his username, but also a link that users can visit to see his other works:
done.
Xenocium will be bumped once Dwarf bases is off of top 6.
Done
Confusing copyright with trademark, actually. It's true there is no issue with having those models in this pack, but they shouldn't be called "Lightsaber", because that term (in this context) is actually trademarked.
I haven't fully read through the legal text yet, but my impressions from doing a "deep skim" are as follows:
Conclusion: IMHO, FAL seems like a decent copyleft license. However, it has a few disadvantages (only minor, really) over CC-BY* licenses and also no real benefits over CC-BY* licenses that I could see. I don't see any harm in using FAL assets, even alongside CC and GPL licensed assets, but I also don't see any reason to seek out FAL assets or projects specifically.
Collections are made by individual users for their own purposes. It is up to them what they consider "compatible" for their own project. It is ultimately a matter of opinion. You are welcome to make your own collection and only add what you consider compatible art. Just be sure to let others see it so we can criticize your interpretation of compatible as well. :P
Haha! Just kidding about that last part. Another thing you can do is leave a comment on the collection or contact the owner of the collection and share your ideas about curation. Many of them welcome suggestions, especially when their collection is meant as a community project to be shared.
Oh, ok. Here are the 4 I was referring to:
They were at different times, but all referring to the same submission. It is fine to make followup comments on your announcement forum post, but it would be better not to make a new announcement thread every time there is a change or new content. However, as I said, I am happy to bump old submissions to the front page if you're adding new content to them. That is even what this thread is for: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/bump-requests
Would you like me to do that for the cold valleys submission?
If you would like me to bump your submission when it recieves significant updates, I am happy to do so. However, posting 4 new forum topics on the same pack is a bit spammy. Please keep new posts relevant to new content.
Understood, and thanks.
Congratulations on your successful launch and speedrun. :)
@davididev: it's CC0; technically having no attribution at all is enough attribution. On the other hand, giving attribution when it isn't required is certainly a nice thing to do. I would recommend using the following instead so it is not just his username, but also a link that users can visit to see his other works:
Pages