Going off of the original LPC style guide, what sort of additions would be made? I realize expected perspective, angle of light, drop shadows, palette, and animations were mentioned, but those are already mentioned in the LPC style guide. I assume you're saying it is missing more specifics of those features, yes?
what does LPC-NG stand for? Liberated Pixel Cup N____? G____?
There cannot be restrictions imposed on what others are allowed to do with LPC assets under any fork. You may encourage buy-in and agreement to follow a stricter set of guidelines, though. You can create a ("yet another") curated collection of LPC assets and only admit the content that meets certain specifictaions as well, but you wouldn't be able to stop anyone from making derivatives that don't follow those specifications and you wouldn't be able to stop such derivatives from being widely adopted if the community happened to prefer them. This is a bit of the XKCD Standards conundrum:
I don't understand how a LPC-specific license would help the issues outlined. CC-BY-SA, OGA-BY, and GPL (the most common licenses for LPC content) already allow you to copy-paste a list of all-LPC-contributors-ever* for attribution. The Universal character generator already does this under the terms of these licenses; you can either attribute every contributor who has added to the generator's content, or just the specific contributors who made the components of the character you've made. How would a new license allow you to credit authors more easily?
*Such a list is always growing. There could not be a static place to copy the attribution from. It would have to be dynamic and curated to include new authors as they contribute content.
P.S. I should be able to answer any OGA related questions you may have for bart, or pass along any informaiton if necessary.
On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to have me pass along a complaint about me. So if you wish to talk to bart about my administrative actions or lack thereof, you should probably contact Sharm, Redshrike, or Botanic. They will pass along that information to bart, and I'll be dealt with properly :P
There is something wrong with the site in that it is trying to notify the site email about itself and can't deliver the message. However, I still see the stuff marked as spam, so it isn't really keeping anything from working.
He's pretty private about that stuff, so pretty sure "nope" to sharing his location. I was being somewhat facetious, but only because I'm not sure what sort of information was actually being sought. I correspond with him occasionally about OGA decisions, but he's mostly hands-off for now; being very busy with other work and family.
One thing I like to do on big albums like that is make the first preview be a sampling of several of the songs in the album. You can still have more detailed individual previews after that, but the first preview can be heard right from the gallery page, so it does better representing the whole album that way.
Going off of the original LPC style guide, what sort of additions would be made? I realize expected perspective, angle of light, drop shadows, palette, and animations were mentioned, but those are already mentioned in the LPC style guide. I assume you're saying it is missing more specifics of those features, yes?
what does LPC-NG stand for? Liberated Pixel Cup N____? G____?
There cannot be restrictions imposed on what others are allowed to do with LPC assets under any fork. You may encourage buy-in and agreement to follow a stricter set of guidelines, though. You can create a ("yet another") curated collection of LPC assets and only admit the content that meets certain specifictaions as well, but you wouldn't be able to stop anyone from making derivatives that don't follow those specifications and you wouldn't be able to stop such derivatives from being widely adopted if the community happened to prefer them. This is a bit of the XKCD Standards conundrum:
I don't understand how a LPC-specific license would help the issues outlined. CC-BY-SA, OGA-BY, and GPL (the most common licenses for LPC content) already allow you to copy-paste a list of all-LPC-contributors-ever* for attribution. The Universal character generator already does this under the terms of these licenses; you can either attribute every contributor who has added to the generator's content, or just the specific contributors who made the components of the character you've made. How would a new license allow you to credit authors more easily?
*Such a list is always growing. There could not be a static place to copy the attribution from. It would have to be dynamic and curated to include new authors as they contribute content.
Congratulations ElizaWy and thanks to all who participated!
Medals awarded.
Are you asking how to incorporate the file into your game code? Or are you asking what is the proper way to adhere to the license requirements?
That would make the last paragraph in this comment of mine rather forshadowing, wouldn't it.
P.S. I should be able to answer any OGA related questions you may have for bart, or pass along any informaiton if necessary.
On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to have me pass along a complaint about me. So if you wish to talk to bart about my administrative actions or lack thereof, you should probably contact Sharm, Redshrike, or Botanic. They will pass along that information to bart, and I'll be dealt with properly :P
There is something wrong with the site in that it is trying to notify the site email about itself and can't deliver the message. However, I still see the stuff marked as spam, so it isn't really keeping anything from working.
He's pretty private about that stuff, so pretty sure "nope" to sharing his location. I was being somewhat facetious, but only because I'm not sure what sort of information was actually being sought. I correspond with him occasionally about OGA decisions, but he's mostly hands-off for now; being very busy with other work and family.
Los Angeles I think.
One thing I like to do on big albums like that is make the first preview be a sampling of several of the songs in the album. You can still have more detailed individual previews after that, but the first preview can be heard right from the gallery page, so it does better representing the whole album that way.
I would say you did it the preferred way. It isn't that difficult to tell which preview goes with each track, in my opinion.
Pages