If I'm seeing this right, the update includes identical frames of animation as the previous version, but the new spritesheet is just in a different order, correct?
I can see it is an enhancement, but if it is just a rearrangement of existing content, I'm not sure a bump is warranted. Though I am not familiar with the effort involved with RPG Maker or RPG Boss spritesheet requirements, so if there is popular request for such updates, then never mind what I just said. :)
Interesting. I'm trying to get into Godot myself, so this was a good read. I enjoyed playing ogazuhl as well (oh, I get it: OGAzuhl). I'm a sucker for those classic 1st person orthogonal dungeon crawls, and ogazuhl already looks better than the ones I played in my infancy. Looking forward to DungeonMore. :)
"...and you set the license to CC(whatever), you already have trouble."
True, but not because you published your game with a pixabay asset. The trouble is from changing the license from pixabay's to CC(whatever). I was never recommending (and specificially expressed concern against) changing the license.
It's unfortunate pixabay staff and some contributors view the sale or hosting of CC0 assets on other sites as "abuse". I can understand some users not truly understanding the implications before submitting work under CC0 and feeling remorse over it, but the correct response should not be to attempt to force CC0 to be something it is not:
A: "You can have this candy bar. It's free. Do what you want with it. You can even share it."
Q: "Really? Cool. I think I'll share it with my friend."
A: "NO! you can't do that! We don't want you to share it with other people!"
Q: "...!? Then why did you explicitly state that I am allowed to share it?"
A: "It seemed easier to say it that way."
Q: "Are you going to stop telling people they can do things you don't even want them to do, then?"
A: "We never told people that in the first place."
Q: "You just told ME that!"
A: "Yeah, but it would be really rude of you to tell people we told you that. because we never really felt that way to begin with. We were just saying it, you know? We didn't mean it. Stop abusing us!"
Simon says they don't want to let people know which assets are CC0 because "abuses" were occurring. Anybody know what sort of abuses the Pixabay contributors were experiencing? I am having a hard time thinking of ways one could actually abuse CC0. User implying warranty or endorsement of author? Images of actual persons? Everything else is permitted.
P.S. If you do want to use pixabay's assets that are under the new license, you could do so safely in your project so long as:
you don't post them on a stock photo or wallpaper platform. (Pff! Unless your project is called "We're like Stockimage.com, but different", I doubt this is a concern)
you don't use assets with identifiable people, or portray people in a bad light or offensive nature (We don't really allow this on OGA either - see here - so not really a big change from anything you'd find here)
you don't assume or imply endorsement by author or source (already one of the very few requirements of CC0, so I doubt that would ever be an issue)
you don't use the asset unmodified. You must add value in some way. Kind of the opposite of the CC-BY-ND license; in this case, you MUST have a derivative in order to use it. :P
However, it is unclear if pixabay's ToS allows relicensing, and since OGA does not accept the Pixabay License as one of the available options, we may not be allowed to host any derivatives of assets under pixabay's new license, as that would require the license to change to a different license. I'll have to look into it more to see if their license must be inherited by all derivatives.
Unless this is some new new license change at pixabay, I've already taken a look at this. A similar concern was raised on the forum thread here a few months back. I think it's a pretty dirty move and I certainly won't be using pixabay moving forward, but the good news is they don't get to sneak into your project and change the license on assets already in use.
More directly addressing pixabay's change specifially, see the discussion on submissions derived from pixabay assets (before their license change) here and here.
TL;DR: Before 1-1-2019, pixabay used the CC0 license. pixabay's new stipulations do not apply to any OGA submission prior 2019. Any assets obtained from pixabay before their license change retain their CC0 status. CC0 cannot be revoked, so pixabay changing their license on CC0 assets is irrelevant. However, you should not download assets from pixabay today and treat them as if they are CC0, since they may not be the same assets as those that were available under the original CC0. Make sure the Published date on the pixabay page is before 1-1-2019.
@Spring: sounds like some interior tilesets!
This looks promising! :)
If I'm seeing this right, the update includes identical frames of animation as the previous version, but the new spritesheet is just in a different order, correct?
I can see it is an enhancement, but if it is just a rearrangement of existing content, I'm not sure a bump is warranted. Though I am not familiar with the effort involved with RPG Maker or RPG Boss spritesheet requirements, so if there is popular request for such updates, then never mind what I just said. :)
Why not hire craftpix himself? https://opengameart.org/users/craftpixnet-2d-game-assets Drop him a PM and see if he'd do a request/commission?
@Lamb Nugget Studios: see https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-how-to-credit
Interesting. I'm trying to get into Godot myself, so this was a good read. I enjoyed playing ogazuhl as well (oh, I get it: OGAzuhl). I'm a sucker for those classic 1st person orthogonal dungeon crawls, and ogazuhl already looks better than the ones I played in my infancy. Looking forward to DungeonMore. :)
True, but not because you published your game with a pixabay asset. The trouble is from changing the license from pixabay's to CC(whatever). I was never recommending (and specificially expressed concern against) changing the license.
It's unfortunate pixabay staff and some contributors view the sale or hosting of CC0 assets on other sites as "abuse". I can understand some users not truly understanding the implications before submitting work under CC0 and feeling remorse over it, but the correct response should not be to attempt to force CC0 to be something it is not:
A: "You can have this candy bar. It's free. Do what you want with it. You can even share it."
Q: "Really? Cool. I think I'll share it with my friend."
A: "NO! you can't do that! We don't want you to share it with other people!"
Q: "...!? Then why did you explicitly state that I am allowed to share it?"
A: "It seemed easier to say it that way."
Q: "Are you going to stop telling people they can do things you don't even want them to do, then?"
A: "We never told people that in the first place."
Q: "You just told ME that!"
A: "Yeah, but it would be really rude of you to tell people we told you that. because we never really felt that way to begin with. We were just saying it, you know? We didn't mean it. Stop abusing us!"
Simon says they don't want to let people know which assets are CC0 because "abuses" were occurring. Anybody know what sort of abuses the Pixabay contributors were experiencing? I am having a hard time thinking of ways one could actually abuse CC0. User implying warranty or endorsement of author? Images of actual persons? Everything else is permitted.
P.S. If you do want to use pixabay's assets that are under the new license, you could do so safely in your project so long as:
However, it is unclear if pixabay's ToS allows relicensing, and since OGA does not accept the Pixabay License as one of the available options, we may not be allowed to host any derivatives of assets under pixabay's new license, as that would require the license to change to a different license. I'll have to look into it more to see if their license must be inherited by all derivatives.
???
Unless this is some new new license change at pixabay, I've already taken a look at this. A similar concern was raised on the forum thread here a few months back. I think it's a pretty dirty move and I certainly won't be using pixabay moving forward, but the good news is they don't get to sneak into your project and change the license on assets already in use.
More directly addressing pixabay's change specifially, see the discussion on submissions derived from pixabay assets (before their license change) here and here.
TL;DR: Before 1-1-2019, pixabay used the CC0 license. pixabay's new stipulations do not apply to any OGA submission prior 2019. Any assets obtained from pixabay before their license change retain their CC0 status. CC0 cannot be revoked, so pixabay changing their license on CC0 assets is irrelevant. However, you should not download assets from pixabay today and treat them as if they are CC0, since they may not be the same assets as those that were available under the original CC0. Make sure the Published date on the pixabay page is before 1-1-2019.
Pages