If the author uploads their own work here OGA is hosting it with their direct permission, not under the terms of the GPL.
Is that really true? There is nothing in the submission guidelines that say that when you submit something, you implicitly give OGA the right to redistribute the work. The only thing that gives any indication that OGA has any rights except those in copyright law itself is that you indicate which licenses the work falls under.
Only the copyright holder (artist) can claim a greivance on a potential infringement of their works. If the copyright holder only provided an mp3 file, why would they claim greivance against OGA or anyone else for failing to provide the "source" when they themselves haven't provided what they consider the source?
I think it is dangerous to make such assumptions. There is nothing in the submission form that would give OGA any indication that it has rights beyond those in copyright law and the exact licenses that the submitter claims apply to the submitted work.
The problem goes also further than OGA. The actual reason I've started this discussion is because I was looking at packaging a game for Debian. That game mentioned in the credits that one of the songs in the soundtrack was GPL. However, no source of that song was in the source package. The song in question was taken from OGA (http://opengameart.org/content/heroism). So now I'd have to remove the song from the game, because Debian is quite clear that it doesn't allow anything that is GPL if I cannot provide the source for it, I cannot handwave it away by saying that the author probably will not sue Debian. The game author also has a potential problem to deal with. There would not have been a problem if the song was (dual-)licensed under the CC-BY-SA or a more permissive license.
About integrating assets without source with GPL games: sure, the GPL allows interaction with non-GPLed components. But if you put those assets themselves under the GPL, then I expect them to either be source or come with source.
The intention of many uploaders is probably indeed that they want their work to be compatible with GPL games. But that can still make the GPL the wrong license for the assets they upload. If it's already dual-licensed then just dropping the GPL fixes the issue. If there are assets that are only under the GPL, then in my opinion, if they don't come with or are source they should be removed.
Ah, you mean it like that. Well, the GPL doesn't say that the offer should come from the distributor, so I guess that if it comes from the original author and is just forwarded, then that is fine. However, 6c) also says that this alternative is only allowed occasionally and noncommercially. The term "occasionally" is quite vague, but I doubt that it would be qualified as occasionally if OGA would use this way of passing on the offer for all works it has.
Regardless, I currently don't see any offers accompanied with GPL-only music on OGA.
That's not how it works. You can't offload some sections of the GPL to someone else. OGA is distributing files under the GPL, so OGA has to fulfill the requirements set out in the GPL, not anyone else. Since OGA does not ship physical products, it means OGA must provide access to the copy of the source from a network server for free, OR include an offer with the non-source files that you can get the source files from OGA upon request.
@capbros:
I wasn't specific enough. The Linux distributions provide the source files for all GPL'ed objects. There is of course also a lot of things in Linux distributions that come under other licenses. And if there is GPL licensed artwork in a distribution that does not have a reasonable source, then they are of course in violation. I'm sure it happens sometimes, I don't expect everything to be perfect. I also wouldn't be complaining here if it wasn't for the fact that I can search for GPL-only music on OGA and get hundreds of hits, most of which only contain a .ogg or .mp3.
I don't want to request source for GPL-only content right now because I'm quite sure OGA cannot provide me with it, there is no intent to do anything bad by anyone, but it just is something that should be properly addressed in my opinion.
It's great that you have the source files for your work and that you don't mind making them available. It's also true that the source of a work can have a vastly different size than the final result. I don't know what policies OGA has for this, but I can imagine that uploading gigabytes of data can be problematic.
There is absolutely no problem asking the artist for a different format. From experience I know that artists actually appreciate being contacted when someone wants to use their works, and most of the time they are quite willing to help out with formats and licensing issues.
The problem is that when you upload something to OGA that has the GPL license, then OGA itself becomes a distributor of the GPL'ed work. Legally, the burden is then on OGA to provide the sources on request, as required by the GPL. It is not OK for OGA to say "oh I don't know, why don't you ask the author?"
Another issue is that OGA cannot rely on the original author still being reachable. Linux distributions have had a much longer time to work out these issues, and they all have copies of the source code of all the packages they ship available for download, because that is just the best way to comply with the GPL.
It might also be fine if OGA didn't have the option to mark content as licensed under the GPL, but rather only allow the other licenses, and have the option to say "by the way, the author is willing to provide the source of this work under an OGA-approved license, if you contact him/her directly."
It's true that the "preferred form" is not always clear. Indeed, it means different things to different people. Although as kagerato says, whatever form the original author used can probably seen as the preferred form.
That said, if the author made an image in Photoshop using layers, then it's probably fine to have the individual layers available as PNG files, since they can be trivially converted back into a .psd or .xcf file. Don't make the mistake of interpreting the GPL too literally. It's the practical application that matters. But the GPL is also clear that it's a problem if the only form of preferred modification is one that can only be processed by non-free software.
At the end of the day, you just have to take it on good faith that the artist has provided the work in the format they thought was 'preferred'.
That's a dangerous attitude. Also, don't forget that it is not just OGA which might get into trouble for not being able to provide the source for works under the GPL, it's also those who download GPL'ed assets for use in their own works that end up having to bear this burden. The whole point of going to OGA instead of most other "free" image/sound/music sites is that we can be sure that things are properly licensed here.
I also don't think uploaders are disingenuous or that OGA is intentionally making a mockery out of the GPL. However, the whole point of the GPL is that the source is available. It doesn't matter if the intentions were good or whether the author lost the source files.
I do agree CC0, CC-BY and OGA-BY are the most convenient licenses for users of works. The GPL is also problematic in that it requires the whole combined work to be GPL'ed. The LGPL would be a better choice. The point of the (L)GPL is to ensure the source is available, so users may learn from it and make their own modifications much more easily. Personally, I would love to see more work in source form on OGA!
@Redshrike:
Is that really true? There is nothing in the submission guidelines that say that when you submit something, you implicitly give OGA the right to redistribute the work. The only thing that gives any indication that OGA has any rights except those in copyright law itself is that you indicate which licenses the work falls under.
@MedicineStorm:
I think it is dangerous to make such assumptions. There is nothing in the submission form that would give OGA any indication that it has rights beyond those in copyright law and the exact licenses that the submitter claims apply to the submitted work.
The problem goes also further than OGA. The actual reason I've started this discussion is because I was looking at packaging a game for Debian. That game mentioned in the credits that one of the songs in the soundtrack was GPL. However, no source of that song was in the source package. The song in question was taken from OGA (http://opengameart.org/content/heroism). So now I'd have to remove the song from the game, because Debian is quite clear that it doesn't allow anything that is GPL if I cannot provide the source for it, I cannot handwave it away by saying that the author probably will not sue Debian. The game author also has a potential problem to deal with. There would not have been a problem if the song was (dual-)licensed under the CC-BY-SA or a more permissive license.
@capbros:
I don't think your contentious :)
@kagerato:
Hm, I might indeed have overestimated the number.
About integrating assets without source with GPL games: sure, the GPL allows interaction with non-GPLed components. But if you put those assets themselves under the GPL, then I expect them to either be source or come with source.
The intention of many uploaders is probably indeed that they want their work to be compatible with GPL games. But that can still make the GPL the wrong license for the assets they upload. If it's already dual-licensed then just dropping the GPL fixes the issue. If there are assets that are only under the GPL, then in my opinion, if they don't come with or are source they should be removed.
I'm repeating myself now, so I'll shut up :)
@p0ss:
Ah, you mean it like that. Well, the GPL doesn't say that the offer should come from the distributor, so I guess that if it comes from the original author and is just forwarded, then that is fine. However, 6c) also says that this alternative is only allowed occasionally and noncommercially. The term "occasionally" is quite vague, but I doubt that it would be qualified as occasionally if OGA would use this way of passing on the offer for all works it has.
Regardless, I currently don't see any offers accompanied with GPL-only music on OGA.
@p0ss:
That's not how it works. You can't offload some sections of the GPL to someone else. OGA is distributing files under the GPL, so OGA has to fulfill the requirements set out in the GPL, not anyone else. Since OGA does not ship physical products, it means OGA must provide access to the copy of the source from a network server for free, OR include an offer with the non-source files that you can get the source files from OGA upon request.
@capbros:
I wasn't specific enough. The Linux distributions provide the source files for all GPL'ed objects. There is of course also a lot of things in Linux distributions that come under other licenses. And if there is GPL licensed artwork in a distribution that does not have a reasonable source, then they are of course in violation. I'm sure it happens sometimes, I don't expect everything to be perfect. I also wouldn't be complaining here if it wasn't for the fact that I can search for GPL-only music on OGA and get hundreds of hits, most of which only contain a .ogg or .mp3.
I don't want to request source for GPL-only content right now because I'm quite sure OGA cannot provide me with it, there is no intent to do anything bad by anyone, but it just is something that should be properly addressed in my opinion.
Hi p0ss,
It's great that you have the source files for your work and that you don't mind making them available. It's also true that the source of a work can have a vastly different size than the final result. I don't know what policies OGA has for this, but I can imagine that uploading gigabytes of data can be problematic.
There is absolutely no problem asking the artist for a different format. From experience I know that artists actually appreciate being contacted when someone wants to use their works, and most of the time they are quite willing to help out with formats and licensing issues.
The problem is that when you upload something to OGA that has the GPL license, then OGA itself becomes a distributor of the GPL'ed work. Legally, the burden is then on OGA to provide the sources on request, as required by the GPL. It is not OK for OGA to say "oh I don't know, why don't you ask the author?"
Another issue is that OGA cannot rely on the original author still being reachable. Linux distributions have had a much longer time to work out these issues, and they all have copies of the source code of all the packages they ship available for download, because that is just the best way to comply with the GPL.
It might also be fine if OGA didn't have the option to mark content as licensed under the GPL, but rather only allow the other licenses, and have the option to say "by the way, the author is willing to provide the source of this work under an OGA-approved license, if you contact him/her directly."
It's true that the "preferred form" is not always clear. Indeed, it means different things to different people. Although as kagerato says, whatever form the original author used can probably seen as the preferred form.
That said, if the author made an image in Photoshop using layers, then it's probably fine to have the individual layers available as PNG files, since they can be trivially converted back into a .psd or .xcf file. Don't make the mistake of interpreting the GPL too literally. It's the practical application that matters. But the GPL is also clear that it's a problem if the only form of preferred modification is one that can only be processed by non-free software.
That's a dangerous attitude. Also, don't forget that it is not just OGA which might get into trouble for not being able to provide the source for works under the GPL, it's also those who download GPL'ed assets for use in their own works that end up having to bear this burden. The whole point of going to OGA instead of most other "free" image/sound/music sites is that we can be sure that things are properly licensed here.
I also don't think uploaders are disingenuous or that OGA is intentionally making a mockery out of the GPL. However, the whole point of the GPL is that the source is available. It doesn't matter if the intentions were good or whether the author lost the source files.
I do agree CC0, CC-BY and OGA-BY are the most convenient licenses for users of works. The GPL is also problematic in that it requires the whole combined work to be GPL'ed. The LGPL would be a better choice. The point of the (L)GPL is to ensure the source is available, so users may learn from it and make their own modifications much more easily. Personally, I would love to see more work in source form on OGA!
Pages