@bzt: I'm trying to clarify what I am (not) allowed to do. Not what you are (not) allowed to do.
You are correct that the open nature of the licenses means you can freely create a certification and specification for the content without permission or buy-in from the original authors. You can even enforce it in any way you desire that is within your authority...
...BUT I CANNOT. As an administrator of OGA, my actions carry different authority and they imply undue support for- or suppression of- those same freedoms granted by the license. When you do it, you're exercising your freedom. When I do it, I'm "picking sides."
I volunteered to moderate a tag before it implied endorsement. The "parents" did relinquish officiation over LPC content, but the license they used does say "You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." So my concern may end up being negligible, but not unfounded.
As I stated before, "LPC-CERT" or "Liberated Pixel Cup Certified" implies a degree of officiation that this specification does not carry. Yes, you already said you don't care what the tag is. I'm just outlining my reasons for what I am saying about that particular tag in an effort to answer your questions.
This is similar to hosting a website called "Official Minecraft Mods" without having any relationship or agreement with Mojang or Microsoft. Even if the intent is to say "our minecraft mods are certified by our own set of specifications, so we consider them 'official' according to our own non-microsoft criteria", the name "Official Minecraft Mods" is still implying a level of oficiation and endorsement by others. In the same manner "Liberated Pixel Cup Certified" will appear to a reasonable person to be an officially enforced certification process pertaining to any LPC content, (A.K.A. "LPC in general") especially when this is enforced by an OpenGameArt.org administrator.
Then why haven't you bring it up before I created the first draft?
Well, because:
You stated you were not only willing to revise your drafts, you were expecting to.
I guess I missed the part where you said "I'll be starting the first draft now. No further change suggestions will be accepted after this!" Three days is the deadline for replying to a specific topic, huh?
I was busy. We all have jobs, families, and other obligations. Some of us even waste their free time fighting spammers, hackers, copyright violators, and noobs asking "Y cant I C my favorites B4 I log N2 site?!!1!?" Some days I have time to give details. Some days I don't. I don't get paid for OGA, so it has to take a back seat sometimes.
TL;DR: I'm required to care what the tag is if I'm enforcing it. If you don't care what the tag is or how its enforced, problem solved!
Nope, I have no issues with LPC-CMP, LPC-COMP, LPC-CMPE, LPC-Compatible, LPC-RDY, or LPC-Ready because they do not imply officiation. "Ready" is a bit weird in my opinion, but only because it's hard to tell what that means. Ready for what? I scoff at tags like "game ready" for the same reason because either nothing on this site is game ready or everything is.
uploding just the .blend file is acceptable, yes. However, it is preferred, if you are able, to upload several common 3D formats, like .obj, etc. as well as the .blend file. That along with any files that may go with them, like textures, bumpmaps, and the like.
Also, per the submission guidelines, be sure to credit any textures you used if you're including textures with the model.
"I'd like to point out that I've suggested this tag in particular on Thursday, April 7, 2022 - 18:12, and there was no objections back then (not from you, not from anybody else)."
I voiced my concerns with that tag on April 10th. You dismissed that concern and gave your motivations. No problem; I dropped it because you didn't feel it was an issue.
I only brought it back up again because there has since been some hinted expectation of enforcement of the tag's usage. For instance
"The point of "LPC-CERT" tag is that it cannot be added to such half-ready submissions..."
...It only demands that the "LPC-CERT" tag can be added to your submission when it's ready to be used in games, and not sooner...
...The only mandatory thing is, the LPC-CERT tag has some criteria to be fulfilled in order to be given to a submission...
"...guaranteed to be compatible..."
How is this enforced? If anyone can add the tag to any submission, what is guaranteeing compatibility? I assumed the answer was "an Administrator". If I've misread that, then disregard. I'm not saying it needs to be enforced, that just seemed to be the assumption going around. I'm not objecting to you or anyone else using any tag you/they want. I was informing you there won't be any special curation of that tag beyond each user's good faith.
licensing page looks fine. However, I should let you know I don't feel comfortable administrating the use of a "LPC-CERT" tag according to specifications that lack authority to certify LPC in general. It either needs some qualifier to indicate this is separate from the original LPC event, or it needs buy-in/approval from the "parents" of the original LPC event (Bart, Sharm, Redshrike, etc.) before I could do so.
If the concern is about the "trivial submission" rule, I cannot imagine a reasonable person being able to produce these in just a few minutes, animated or not. There is no risk of that.
These strike me as sort of shadow-demon cryptid Pokemon creatures. Intriguing.
BTW, after long consideration I ended up with the LPCERT or LPC-CERT tag (Liberated Pixel Cup Certified). This expresses that it's based on LPC, but also that the submission follows a stricter set or rules/guidelines which guarantees compatibility. What do you think?
I can see the importance of the implications there. I think "Cert" or "Certified" implies endorsement by the original LPC contest organizers. It makes sense to certify any additions to this fork against the set of rules being outlined, but you don't want to imply that something isn't truly LPC without following these guidelines. It would be correct to say something isn't truly belonging to this fork of the LPC if it doesn't follow the rules of this guide, but otherwise it would appear as if we're saying there is only one set of LPC assets, and (currently) most of the LPC content doesn't even satisfy the conditions of its "own" certification, not even the original base assets.
How do you feel about using the tag "LPC-Revised" since much of the certification rules are to be influenced by ElizaWy's titular submssion "[LPC Revised] Character Basics!"? ... Or even "LPC-RCert" or some derivation thereof to indicate this is certification for the "R" or "Revised" fork, specifically?
First draft awaiting your reviews!
Looking good! For the https://bztsrc.gitlab.io/lpc-cert/#licensing section, I recommend adding some (further) clarification about when licenses are requried when content is not made from scratch. The licensing page says there is no mandatory license, which is true, but that is only the case when the asset is not being derived from some other LPC asset. Since a vast majority of new LPC assets are derived from former LPC assets, I worry this could confuse people into thinking they need not use CC-BY (SA) for their derivatives when basing them off of CC-BY (SA) content. This is actually one of the more common licensing issues I see. The warning at the bottom addresses exactly this, and it's good; I am recommending further clarifying what constitutes a derivative of other work.
Is there anything more than the colors you're borrowing from those games? Like patterns or textures?
Nope. Palettes can't be copyrighted.
@itszed: See FAQ entry #1 and let us know if you still have questions. :)
@bzt: I'm trying to clarify what I am (not) allowed to do. Not what you are (not) allowed to do.
You are correct that the open nature of the licenses means you can freely create a certification and specification for the content without permission or buy-in from the original authors. You can even enforce it in any way you desire that is within your authority...
...BUT I CANNOT. As an administrator of OGA, my actions carry different authority and they imply undue support for- or suppression of- those same freedoms granted by the license. When you do it, you're exercising your freedom. When I do it, I'm "picking sides."
I volunteered to moderate a tag before it implied endorsement. The "parents" did relinquish officiation over LPC content, but the license they used does say "You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." So my concern may end up being negligible, but not unfounded.
As I stated before, "LPC-CERT" or "Liberated Pixel Cup Certified" implies a degree of officiation that this specification does not carry. Yes, you already said you don't care what the tag is. I'm just outlining my reasons for what I am saying about that particular tag in an effort to answer your questions.
This is similar to hosting a website called "Official Minecraft Mods" without having any relationship or agreement with Mojang or Microsoft. Even if the intent is to say "our minecraft mods are certified by our own set of specifications, so we consider them 'official' according to our own non-microsoft criteria", the name "Official Minecraft Mods" is still implying a level of oficiation and endorsement by others. In the same manner "Liberated Pixel Cup Certified" will appear to a reasonable person to be an officially enforced certification process pertaining to any LPC content, (A.K.A. "LPC in general") especially when this is enforced by an OpenGameArt.org administrator.
Well, because:
TL;DR: I'm required to care what the tag is if I'm enforcing it. If you don't care what the tag is or how its enforced, problem solved!
Nope, I have no issues with LPC-CMP, LPC-COMP, LPC-CMPE, LPC-Compatible, LPC-RDY, or LPC-Ready because they do not imply officiation. "Ready" is a bit weird in my opinion, but only because it's hard to tell what that means. Ready for what? I scoff at tags like "game ready" for the same reason because either nothing on this site is game ready or everything is.
uploding just the .blend file is acceptable, yes. However, it is preferred, if you are able, to upload several common 3D formats, like .obj, etc. as well as the .blend file. That along with any files that may go with them, like textures, bumpmaps, and the like.
Also, per the submission guidelines, be sure to credit any textures you used if you're including textures with the model.
I voiced my concerns with that tag on April 10th. You dismissed that concern and gave your motivations. No problem; I dropped it because you didn't feel it was an issue.
I only brought it back up again because there has since been some hinted expectation of enforcement of the tag's usage. For instance
How is this enforced? If anyone can add the tag to any submission, what is guaranteeing compatibility? I assumed the answer was "an Administrator". If I've misread that, then disregard. I'm not saying it needs to be enforced, that just seemed to be the assumption going around. I'm not objecting to you or anyone else using any tag you/they want. I was informing you there won't be any special curation of that tag beyond each user's good faith.
licensing page looks fine. However, I should let you know I don't feel comfortable administrating the use of a "LPC-CERT" tag according to specifications that lack authority to certify LPC in general. It either needs some qualifier to indicate this is separate from the original LPC event, or it needs buy-in/approval from the "parents" of the original LPC event (Bart, Sharm, Redshrike, etc.) before I could do so.
If the concern is about the "trivial submission" rule, I cannot imagine a reasonable person being able to produce these in just a few minutes, animated or not. There is no risk of that.
These strike me as sort of shadow-demon cryptid Pokemon creatures. Intriguing.
certainly usable. Especially submitted as the whole set.
I can see the importance of the implications there. I think "Cert" or "Certified" implies endorsement by the original LPC contest organizers. It makes sense to certify any additions to this fork against the set of rules being outlined, but you don't want to imply that something isn't truly LPC without following these guidelines. It would be correct to say something isn't truly belonging to this fork of the LPC if it doesn't follow the rules of this guide, but otherwise it would appear as if we're saying there is only one set of LPC assets, and (currently) most of the LPC content doesn't even satisfy the conditions of its "own" certification, not even the original base assets.
How do you feel about using the tag "LPC-Revised" since much of the certification rules are to be influenced by ElizaWy's titular submssion "[LPC Revised] Character Basics!"? ... Or even "LPC-RCert" or some derivation thereof to indicate this is certification for the "R" or "Revised" fork, specifically?
Looking good! For the https://bztsrc.gitlab.io/lpc-cert/#licensing section, I recommend adding some (further) clarification about when licenses are requried when content is not made from scratch. The licensing page says there is no mandatory license, which is true, but that is only the case when the asset is not being derived from some other LPC asset. Since a vast majority of new LPC assets are derived from former LPC assets, I worry this could confuse people into thinking they need not use CC-BY (SA) for their derivatives when basing them off of CC-BY (SA) content. This is actually one of the more common licensing issues I see. The warning at the bottom addresses exactly this, and it's good; I am recommending further clarifying what constitutes a derivative of other work.
Pages