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.
this thread is like the poster child for "why people are scared to fiddle with libre software"
Agreed. The majority of confusion and frustration comes from people wanting to be free to share their work when it's mixed with libre content, but being unable to include other components that are non-libre. GPL and CC-BY-SA are the largest source of this frustration for most people. Well, there's the -NC and -ND licenses, but I - nor FSF - do not consider those to be libre licenses.
However, it is worth noting that FSF has clarified in several instances that "non-functional data" (content that is not code) does not trigger the linking requirement:
GPL FAQ: "If the art/music is under the GPL, then the GPL applies when you copy it no matter how you copy it.... Keep in mind that some programs, particularly video games, can have artwork/audio that is licensed separately from the underlying GPLed game."
...and also...
Wesnoth moderator: "Is it legally permissable to distribute GPL software with non-GPL-compatible game data (graphics, music files etc.)"?
Brett Smith, Free Software Foundation Licensing Team: "If the "content" does not contain any code -- so that it only has maps, sound, graphics, and so on -- then you can release such content for a GPLed game engine under a proprietary license. If the content includes code -- like enemy AI, event scripting, and the like -- then the answer depends on how the engine and the code interact."
(Emphasis mine)
This, and my assumptions about WithinAmnesia's project, is what my original statements were based on. Saying "You simply CANNOT create a collective work including a GPL'd part, the license DOES NOT PERMIT that (read section 5c)." is true... for code. which is why Section 5 is titled "Conveying modified source versions". Creating an aggregate or collective work that includes GPL'd code but non-GPL'd non-code may be permitted. I'm not going to say it IS permitted always, because it depends on a lot of factors, but I tend to trust FSF's interpretation of their own license. Of course if you're licensing art and data as GPL, then of course it all needs to be GPL. However, as you can glean from everything above, GPL is a code license, and makes for a crappy art license. You can use it for art, but it makes things very confusing.
@WithinAmnesia: Whether or not the engine is being used under the terms of GPL or under a properitary private agreement between Clint and yourself doesn't prevent you from letting your players know the engine your game runs on is available under the terms of GPL. Only you get to use the engine under any special terms Clint gave you, but everyone else is still allowed to use the engine under GPL if they want, and you're allowed to say so. No one but Clint is allowed to complain about how you're packaging or using the engine.
Any code changes and code additions you make should also be made GPL and shared with everyone, but the narrative, "quest data", configurations, and art you create are your own and- IMHO- can be packaged in the same download, if not the same folder/zip-file. (As non-functional data, they are not triggering the linking requirement nor qualify as "source code" referenced in GPL section 5, based on FSF's interpretation referenced above. Though this does depend on how you're licensing your own non-code content. GPL as well?) It is always good advice to double-check with the author if you're not clear on what they're ok with, but it seems to me you already had a good understanding of what Clint Bellanger was ok with. You can bug him again if you need, but it doesn't seem like you need to.
There is no risk of Clint (or anyone else who shares content under GPL or CC licenses) revoking his license and saying people can no longer use it freely; these licenses are irrevokable... Also, Clint is the kind of guy that would never do that anyway, even if he could.
@MedicineStrom: I'm afraid GPL does not allow that. He might be able to pack the assets (free, but non-GPL, that's important) and his narrative (proprietary) together, but the GPL license explicitly forbids packing the GPL'd engine with other non-GPL parts
@bzt: You're correct. I was thinking of aggregates under LGPL and collections under CC-BY-SA. I cannot speak to GPL's virality (and should not have). My underlying intent was to point out that WithinAmnesia has spoken with the GPL copyright holder and has been granted his blessing. We are not privy to the full circumstances specific to an arrangement between Clint Bellanger and WithinAmnesia. Any such arrangement would be wholly separate from how GPL affects anyone else with this project, so I won't get into that, and I apologize for adding confusion to this.
How this applies to WithinAmnesia's specific circumstances aside, for anyone else looking for understanding for their own projects, I do agree with bzt's advice to distribute GPL'd engine code separate from content/configuration if they're not also GPL'd. Actually, I recommend avoiding GPL entirely. Of all the free licenses, it is the least free IMO. Those same features probably make it one of the stronger licenses, too, I guess. It's more of an anti-closed-source license than it is a pro-open-source license.
He can indeed distribute the parts together, so long as those parts under GPL are also available for free, without the rest of WithinAmnesia's components. It's effectively identical to what you propose in your last paragraph, but without as much inconvenience.
End users can download the Engine + Assets + config/narrative (aggregate package) from place A (with payment), and/or download the assets from place B (for free), and/or the engine from place C (for free).
Place A, B, and C can also basically be the same place\website, just with the A link requiring payment, while B and C are free downloads. In fact, the way WithinAmnesia's package is set up, users can access all the content of B and C within the game folder structure and are free to use it for free after only downloading A. The point is, the GPL components are all available even without paying anything (via download of B and C), yet they aren't required to download 1 game from 3 places if they don't want to.
GPL section 5c prevents non-GPL components from being combined with GPL components, but like I said above they must all be separate legal collections. I also said some code couldn't be in a separate collection based on how it's linked. That still doesn't necessitate ALL components from being under GPL even if some parts are.
"...if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate."
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.
Agreed. The majority of confusion and frustration comes from people wanting to be free to share their work when it's mixed with libre content, but being unable to include other components that are non-libre. GPL and CC-BY-SA are the largest source of this frustration for most people. Well, there's the -NC and -ND licenses, but I - nor FSF - do not consider those to be libre licenses.
However, it is worth noting that FSF has clarified in several instances that "non-functional data" (content that is not code) does not trigger the linking requirement:
...and also...
(Emphasis mine)
This, and my assumptions about WithinAmnesia's project, is what my original statements were based on. Saying "You simply CANNOT create a collective work including a GPL'd part, the license DOES NOT PERMIT that (read section 5c)." is true... for code. which is why Section 5 is titled "Conveying modified source versions". Creating an aggregate or collective work that includes GPL'd code but non-GPL'd non-code may be permitted. I'm not going to say it IS permitted always, because it depends on a lot of factors, but I tend to trust FSF's interpretation of their own license. Of course if you're licensing art and data as GPL, then of course it all needs to be GPL. However, as you can glean from everything above, GPL is a code license, and makes for a crappy art license. You can use it for art, but it makes things very confusing.
@WithinAmnesia: Whether or not the engine is being used under the terms of GPL or under a properitary private agreement between Clint and yourself doesn't prevent you from letting your players know the engine your game runs on is available under the terms of GPL. Only you get to use the engine under any special terms Clint gave you, but everyone else is still allowed to use the engine under GPL if they want, and you're allowed to say so. No one but Clint is allowed to complain about how you're packaging or using the engine.
Any code changes and code additions you make should also be made GPL and shared with everyone, but the narrative, "quest data", configurations, and art you create are your own and- IMHO- can be packaged in the same download, if not the same folder/zip-file. (As non-functional data, they are not triggering the linking requirement nor qualify as "source code" referenced in GPL section 5, based on FSF's interpretation referenced above. Though this does depend on how you're licensing your own non-code content. GPL as well?) It is always good advice to double-check with the author if you're not clear on what they're ok with, but it seems to me you already had a good understanding of what Clint Bellanger was ok with. You can bug him again if you need, but it doesn't seem like you need to.
There is no risk of Clint (or anyone else who shares content under GPL or CC licenses) revoking his license and saying people can no longer use it freely; these licenses are irrevokable... Also, Clint is the kind of guy that would never do that anyway, even if he could.
@bzt: You're correct. I was thinking of aggregates under LGPL and collections under CC-BY-SA. I cannot speak to GPL's virality (and should not have). My underlying intent was to point out that WithinAmnesia has spoken with the GPL copyright holder and has been granted his blessing. We are not privy to the full circumstances specific to an arrangement between Clint Bellanger and WithinAmnesia. Any such arrangement would be wholly separate from how GPL affects anyone else with this project, so I won't get into that, and I apologize for adding confusion to this.
How this applies to WithinAmnesia's specific circumstances aside, for anyone else looking for understanding for their own projects, I do agree with bzt's advice to distribute GPL'd engine code separate from content/configuration if they're not also GPL'd. Actually, I recommend avoiding GPL entirely. Of all the free licenses, it is the least free IMO. Those same features probably make it one of the stronger licenses, too, I guess. It's more of an anti-closed-source license than it is a pro-open-source license.
He can indeed distribute the parts together, so long as those parts under GPL are also available for free, without the rest of WithinAmnesia's components. It's effectively identical to what you propose in your last paragraph, but without as much inconvenience.
End users can download the Engine + Assets + config/narrative (aggregate package) from place A (with payment), and/or download the assets from place B (for free), and/or the engine from place C (for free).
Place A, B, and C can also basically be the same place\website, just with the A link requiring payment, while B and C are free downloads. In fact, the way WithinAmnesia's package is set up, users can access all the content of B and C within the game folder structure and are free to use it for free after only downloading A. The point is, the GPL components are all available even without paying anything (via download of B and C), yet they aren't required to download 1 game from 3 places if they don't want to.
GPL section 5c prevents non-GPL components from being combined with GPL components, but like I said above they must all be separate legal collections. I also said some code couldn't be in a separate collection based on how it's linked. That still doesn't necessitate ALL components from being under GPL even if some parts are.
Pages