Primary tabs

Comments by User

Friday, March 1, 2013 - 17:48

Bart, if we're going to be hosting source code for actual programs, shouldn't we provide additional licenses besides the GPL (for instance, the BSD, Modified BSD, ZLib/PNG, etc.) ? Not all of us like the GPL and some, like me, are openly opposed to the GPL...

Just my $0.02.

Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 08:01

Okay, thanks for the update. Just wanted to be clear on that! :)

Saturday, February 23, 2013 - 09:21

I'd like to bring this back under the microscope because some questions haven't been answered.

Has this audio track been modified at all or is it just the single sample from a GarageBand package?

Saturday, February 23, 2013 - 07:48


Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 02:33

As a side note, a submission is not the place to ask for help creating new (or revised) content. Ask on the forums instead.

Monday, February 18, 2013 - 16:50

Except that, in the case of source code, if I used even a single line of source code licensed under the GPL, all of the source code in my project would be required to be under the GPL. Because the FSF has not clarified and hasn't really given a good answer yet (I've talked to them directly about this a few times), it stands to reason that art resources that are licensed under the GPL would at least require all the other art for a project to be released under the same license if not the entire project, source code included.

In other words, the GPL is so broadly, ambiguously (read: badly) defined that art released under the GPL is only really useable in projects that are also under the GPL. At least, it is for those who aren't afraid to deal with the potential legal consequences...

I personally would much rather not deal with potential legal issues over an image or a sound piece or a sprite so I just ignore really great artwork that's unfortunate enough to be under a GPL.

Thursday, February 14, 2013 - 09:29

Plain and simply, by licensing artwork and other non-software content under the GPL, you're limiting your work to GPL only projects. Not everybody likes the GPL and many, like myself, choose other much less restrictive licneses like the BSD, MIT or ZLib/PNG licenses. These licenses are incompatible with the GPL which means that I and others who choose other open-source licenses can't use any of the GPL'd resources on OGA without being forced to release my project under the GPL as well.

That alone is where the problem lies. There is a lot of fantastic content on OGA that I can't use because of the GPL, and it's frustrating... no... infuriating... that my hands are tied like that, especially when the artist 'wants to see where this ends up!' and even more especially when the resource/resources are a really good fit.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 14:26

Apologies for the late reply. Thank you! I appreciate it... :)

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 14:23

Agreed. I used to be a big fan of the GPL until I realized what it implied... and I didn't like those implications so I sought out licensing alternatives and found the BSD/ZLib licenses sufficient for software and CC licensing sufficient for artwork. Plus, they're all compatible and none of them forces an entire project to be licensed the same way, just the original work and derivatives (for the most part).

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 14:19

The problem with converting from MP3 to OGG is the serious loss of quality when doing so. They use two different compression algorithms and so they end up throwing away different parts of the audio stream. Converting MP3 to OGG basically means throwing away audio twice, not just once as when converting from a raw loss-less to one or the other lossy formats.

I would agree that encoding to 3 - 4 formats would be overkill, but I think it's reasonable to request both MP3 and OGG. Or, MP3 and whatever raw format you use (wav? flac? something else entire?).