I don't think anything about that is legally actionable (but I am not a lawyer, and I'm only talking about Malifer's post because the original is removed).

I think that one thing you should probably reasses is the fact that there are more prospective game projects than there are qualified artists, and that of those projects the vast majority will never reach completion.  Generally speaking you aren't doing an artist a favor by allowing them to work for free on your project--they are, in fact, doing you an enormous favor if they are at all experienced.  Some artists do go for that sort of thing, though I suspect it's mostly people who are kind of new and need to get it out of their system.

All that to say, I think you may be overestimating the benefits you can offer to people who want to start in game making.  Your company is certainly not at the point where you can have an 'intern' on one of your projects--interns are supposed to be learning in a professional environment from people with a lot of experience.  As far as I can tell that isn't the case here.  You mention Devils Inc Studio, but from what I can tell they were just founded last year by two guys without direct industry experience and have yet to complete a game.  None of that means that you or they couldn't make a great game--everyone has to start somewhere--but it's definitely not going to be like working with a proven studio and it will be a learning process for everyone.  And most relevantly it's unlikely to end up being something that will be terribly meaningful on an artist's portfolio relative to personal work or especially relative to paid work.

I'm not meaning to be a downer, and I really hope that you guys have a lot of success in your work.  But I also think it's important for devs to understand that just having a project isn't enough to attract artists--if you don't have money to offer then it's on you to prove that working on your project is a better use of time and energy than working on any of the many other unpaid projects out there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't AncientBeast assets licensed CC-By-SA?

@Claudeb: " Doesn't work that way."

Of course it works that way, at least some of the time.  What do you think CC0/OGA-By are for?  It is my sincere hope that people who benefit from my freely-licensed work will themselves get interested in FOSS development regardless of what the license strictly requires.  But another goal is to just help lower the barrier to entry for devs making the kinds of games I like, as well as helping there be games out there where the bits I find most interesting are reusable and expandable.  For the most part, I think it's counterproductive to ask too much of devs who aren't (yet) on the FOSS train.  And I'm not saying that anyone else needs to approach it the way I do and I most certainly don't look down on anyone licensing their work however they please, be it CC0 or GPL.  But what I am saying is that not everyone participates in "Free Culture" for the same reasons or with the same goals, and it's not productive or helpful to impinge someone's character because they don't view it the same way as you do.

@Cdoty: that's what OGA-By is.  It is just CC-By with the DRM clause removed.  It covers the usecase just fine, and there's no reason other sites couldn't use it as well.

@Julius: "a short coming of that license in my opinion"

Honestly, I don't fully agree.  I think there is merit both to having a license that requires the art only be used in FOSS projects as well as one that is less sticky and only requires that direct derivatives of the work itself be freely licensed.  The real shortcoming is that some people think it's one and some think it's the other and there's been a fog over which it really is (though the latter seems to be favored now).  But goodness knows that's been chewed over enough.