"I'm finishing the editor right now, and then I'm going to work on the player."
I would love a user-friendly game editor with an LPC focus! I am messing with the editor now, but I'm itching to try out what I'm doing with the editor, so please let us know when that player is ready to try out. Even if it does't have all the features promised by the Editor, yet. :)
"I don't want to be rude so I won't say exactly what I'm saying I don't want to say which is rude"
You were asking him to read the documentation. also known as "reviewing your documentation". I did not misunderstand. I recognize the intent was to direct attention back to what was already provided and being neglected. My point is, it was done in a rude fashion, whether that was your intent or not. I have no issue with saying "please take a look at the links I provided above. They answer all the questions you are asking."
I do have a problem with terms like RTFM, namely because it is a near perfect example of what is outlined in the forum rule examples of what not to do. I am glad you consider that resolved. I need to make sure everyone understands why that isn't the way to talk to people here.
I assume so. I haven't asked the thousands of people using them, though. I mean, if OGA goes down, you wouldn't have access to the collection either.
If you're asking if it's ok for the credits file to contain links to a hypothetically-defunct OGA, then yes. The license doesn't require that you maintain a flawless copy of the internet, just that the links were valid at the time you obtained the asset.
I'm not sure I understand the question. "Files go missing"? You mean what happens if OGA dissappears from the internet? It's been around nearly as long as github. What if files go missing from github?
Ordinarily, the common license would be CC-BY-SA 4.0, but in this case, all authors (evert, sharm, withthelove, and DragonDePlatino) agreed to make those two assets available under later versions of the same license (OGA-BY 3.0 -> OGA-BY 4.0 -> CC-BY 4.0) so yes; derivatives can be licensed under CC-BY 4.0
Go to the bottom of your new collection page, and click "Download Credits File"
You'll get a nice complete list of all assets, licenses, links, and attribution. Stuff you've downloaded also counts as a collection, but I imagine not everything you downloaded are things you intend to use in the game. That's where creating a special collection comes in handy. You can curate the content in it as needed. Make multiple collections, even! If I'm working on multiple game projects at the same time, I have one collection for each project.
Yes, agreed. My struggle is with balancing "derivatives will always be free forever" and "useful and convenient enough to encourage people to derive it in the first place". I have settled on preferring the higher adoption rate and convenience that comes with MIT, CC0, CC-BY, and as Ragnar mentioned BSD even if it comes with the sacrifice of people sometimes closing their derivatives of it.
"as a creator i believe that by putting stuff out there with no restrictions is the most free."
Hear, hear!
I want to make clear this is only my personal opinion on the hardships of FLOSS licensing. I am not discouraging anyone from using any particular license. I, and OGA, will always be for open source and free content in all its forms. I just feel that some of those forms are better than others for certain situations.
I'm guessing Ragnar was referring to being a creator of art vs a user of art. Or perhaps a creator of code vs a user of code. In that sense, both the creator and user are "creators", but one creates the subcomponent, the other uses the subcomponent in order to create something else.
Also, I agree. As both a 1st generation creator ("creator") and a 2nd generation creator ("user" of content for furtherance of creation) I find GPL to be more a waste of time than any benefit I get from it's content as a user-creator.
As a pure user, yes, GPL content has been pretty useful to me. I would even give back and produce more useful things for users to use under GPL, if it weren't so much easier to use MIT stuff to make content instead. Even then, I rarely play GPL games- that would otherwise probably be a fantastic experience- except for inconvenience placed upon me, the end user, by GPL's rules; I want to play a game. Free download, except I have to download multiple separate components and combine them correctly. Often, I don't combine them correctly and the game won't run. Free is nice, but GPL games are rarely "good enough" to warrant the extra inconvenience of doing a bunch of extra steps just to circumvent the content being licensed differently.
Yes, yes, I should just focus on games that are 100% GPL so they don't require combining separate packages. The problem is, where are they? Where are all the good games that are both 100% GPL and aslo aren't a chore to get working? That is only partially a cynical statement. If anyone has a good list of GPL games, share the list and let's give them some love. :) Incidentally, games like Battle for Wesnoth and Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup do not qualify for such a list because they are good, andconvenient, but they are packaged together with non-gpl content.
Thank you, and understood.
I would love a user-friendly game editor with an LPC focus! I am messing with the editor now, but I'm itching to try out what I'm doing with the editor, so please let us know when that player is ready to try out. Even if it does't have all the features promised by the Editor, yet. :)
"I don't want to be rude so I won't say exactly what I'm saying I don't want to say which is rude"
You were asking him to read the documentation. also known as "reviewing your documentation". I did not misunderstand. I recognize the intent was to direct attention back to what was already provided and being neglected. My point is, it was done in a rude fashion, whether that was your intent or not. I have no issue with saying "please take a look at the links I provided above. They answer all the questions you are asking."
I do have a problem with terms like RTFM, namely because it is a near perfect example of what is outlined in the forum rule examples of what not to do. I am glad you consider that resolved. I need to make sure everyone understands why that isn't the way to talk to people here.
Forum rules:
Choose a nicer way to request review of your documentation, please.
I assume so. I haven't asked the thousands of people using them, though. I mean, if OGA goes down, you wouldn't have access to the collection either.
If you're asking if it's ok for the credits file to contain links to a hypothetically-defunct OGA, then yes. The license doesn't require that you maintain a flawless copy of the internet, just that the links were valid at the time you obtained the asset.
the collection system is only for OGA assets, so OGA would have to disappear for the links to die.
I'm not sure I understand the question. "Files go missing"? You mean what happens if OGA dissappears from the internet? It's been around nearly as long as github. What if files go missing from github?
This situation is essentially identical to the one discussed here: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/remixing-by-30-and-by-40
Ordinarily, the common license would be CC-BY-SA 4.0, but in this case, all authors (evert, sharm, withthelove, and DragonDePlatino) agreed to make those two assets available under later versions of the same license (OGA-BY 3.0 -> OGA-BY 4.0 -> CC-BY 4.0) so yes; derivatives can be licensed under CC-BY 4.0
a CREDITS file is especially easy for any assets on OGA:
You'll get a nice complete list of all assets, licenses, links, and attribution. Stuff you've downloaded also counts as a collection, but I imagine not everything you downloaded are things you intend to use in the game. That's where creating a special collection comes in handy. You can curate the content in it as needed. Make multiple collections, even! If I'm working on multiple game projects at the same time, I have one collection for each project.
Yes, agreed. My struggle is with balancing "derivatives will always be free forever" and "useful and convenient enough to encourage people to derive it in the first place". I have settled on preferring the higher adoption rate and convenience that comes with MIT, CC0, CC-BY, and as Ragnar mentioned BSD even if it comes with the sacrifice of people sometimes closing their derivatives of it.
Hear, hear!
I want to make clear this is only my personal opinion on the hardships of FLOSS licensing. I am not discouraging anyone from using any particular license. I, and OGA, will always be for open source and free content in all its forms. I just feel that some of those forms are better than others for certain situations.
I'm guessing Ragnar was referring to being a creator of art vs a user of art. Or perhaps a creator of code vs a user of code. In that sense, both the creator and user are "creators", but one creates the subcomponent, the other uses the subcomponent in order to create something else.
Also, I agree. As both a 1st generation creator ("creator") and a 2nd generation creator ("user" of content for furtherance of creation) I find GPL to be more a waste of time than any benefit I get from it's content as a user-creator.
As a pure user, yes, GPL content has been pretty useful to me. I would even give back and produce more useful things for users to use under GPL, if it weren't so much easier to use MIT stuff to make content instead. Even then, I rarely play GPL games- that would otherwise probably be a fantastic experience- except for inconvenience placed upon me, the end user, by GPL's rules; I want to play a game. Free download, except I have to download multiple separate components and combine them correctly. Often, I don't combine them correctly and the game won't run. Free is nice, but GPL games are rarely "good enough" to warrant the extra inconvenience of doing a bunch of extra steps just to circumvent the content being licensed differently.
Yes, yes, I should just focus on games that are 100% GPL so they don't require combining separate packages. The problem is, where are they? Where are all the good games that are both 100% GPL and aslo aren't a chore to get working? That is only partially a cynical statement. If anyone has a good list of GPL games, share the list and let's give them some love. :) Incidentally, games like Battle for Wesnoth and Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup do not qualify for such a list because they are good, and convenient, but they are packaged together with non-gpl content.
Pages