"Yes. That would be ideal. If you take a look at the GitHub for OGA and identify in the site code that may make that visible (and accurate), by all means suggest the code change. For now, I have to determine it manually. :("
the information that displays based on that check box is still not visible. however, the correct state of the check box is retained behind the scenes. So the only accurate way to determine if the user checked that box or not is to manually check behind the scenes on a case by case basis for now.
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.
Looks like only submissions with revisions are 100% accurate. Let me reassess the stuff I've checked in the past.
@marko:
the information that displays based on that check box is still not visible. however, the correct state of the check box is retained behind the scenes. So the only accurate way to determine if the user checked that box or not is to manually check behind the scenes on a case by case basis for now.
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.
Pages