I personally am open to seeing more licenses here on Open Game Art. However, I am unsure what the best picks would be. Looking at the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Open Source Initiative's (OSI) lists would be a good start, but many of those are intended for programs and may or may not be suitable here.
There are weakness in the gradient provided here. For example if you want a license that does not require credit you have to choose the CC0, which is probably a poor choice. What if you want a strong copyleft license like the GPL, but do not want credit unless the file is distributed as a resource like the zlib? There is no license here (or anywhere else I know of for that matter) that can fill that role.
Please note that the GPL (version 2 and 3) define the "source code" as follows:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." (from the GPL v2 section 3)
"The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." (from the GPL v3 section 1 Source Code.)
So although a png is an acceptable form of "source code" distribution (for images) you have to be careful not to destroy data useful for editing (like layers for example). Since these are generally not wanted when using the assets in game a separate "source code" distribution of assets may be useful.
Of course if your file does not have this sort of information (and you do not add it) you are probably fine.
Animators are like actors, in order to give a good performance they need to know their character, their part on the stage, and their part of the stage. You have not covered these particularly well and in so doing tied the hands of anyone who wants to help.
The following things are very useful:
* What project is this for?
* Who is the character that you need animated?
* What is the direction of the game? (Cartoony/Realistic, Violent/Peacefull, etc.)
* Are their any events that would affect how characters act?
* What are the technical limitations for the project? (Often it is best to point to your engine's documentation or ask the lead programmer.)
I think you did a great job on the model by the way. The only concerns I have are that:
* The scarf is made up of single sided quads. This will cause problems if backface culling is used.
* You IK rigged the arms. FK makes animating the arms more tedious, but a lot easier to make look natural. (FK rigged fingers are probably not worth it.)
* The IK rigging on the legs is tied to the shins. Ideally the IK control point is on the bottom of the feet so you can easily place the character's feet on the ground.
* You are missing grip bones in both your characters hands and on the weapon.
* You have a high number of bones (72). One engine I have read up on looses the ability to use hardware acceleration for your character if your character has more than 75. I would recommend getting rid of the palm.01 - palm.04 L/R bones and the heel.02.L/R bones. I feel they are not helping much if at all.
I do not think the problem is that bart is not interested in this. He just seems to be really busy right now...
I think there is a lot that could be done to improve the license selection process on OGA, however I am not sure how best to go about it. In an ideal case I would like to see a license added some where between OGA-BY and the CC0 (that is a really big gap if you think about it.) and an instructional program added to help developers and artists understand some of the legal concerns with various IP laws and how the licenses here apply to that. Quite frankly the FAQ does not even come close to covering it.
CC-by-sa neglects to mention to you what the "attribution" in its name means.
CC-by implies there is no anti-DRM clause and did not notice it's copyleft mechanism.
You can read the GPLs and LGPLs yourself, that is not even close.
CC0: "There are therefore no legal concerns with using it, and it is safe to use in any project." If only that were true (;_;).
The OGA-by as you mentioned is not even there.
I have about run out of time for now so I guess the question is if you could change what the FAQ says about just the CC-by what would you make it say?
Just a note to anyone who may be seeking "legal advise", get a lawyer. OGA is a community of artists, some digital and some interactive, do to the nature of "Intellectual Property Laws" a decent number of people here have spent some time studing licenses and other related things. That said none of us know everything and the laws in one place are different in other places. The conversations we have here are like peers talking to each other about a problem faceing them all. Do not mistake this for fact. Either do the homework or get a lawyer, if problems come up you have no one to blaim but yourself.
Anyway, I guess I will check back later (probably with in two weeks).
First thank you for your detailed feed back. It may prove helpful in future developments.
I would like to take the time to comment on a few things though.
Tozan to the best of my knowledge most people do not use batch code for game development. That language was designed for something else and lacks the speed and functions that at least I would like out of a game development language. It is possible to add batch script support to Godot however you would have to write a new module in C++ in order to do it ( See: https://github.com/okamstudio/godot/wiki/custom_modules ). However, I am unaware of any game 3D game engines that support batch by default. A quick Google search does turn up batch game engine but I do not know how much help they would be.
Being some what experienced with both programs I can tell you that Godot and Blender have completely different bad interfaces. However, the point remains. Godots interface is not for everyone and haveing a background in a Unix based operating system and 3D modeling are huge assets. I expect this to improve some over time. In part because the engine has been out for about one year now, haveing just reached version 1.1, and is still missing a lot of documentation. All that said, I doubt Godot will ever become so user friendly anyone can just grab it and go. The online documentation can be found here: https://github.com/okamstudio/godot/wiki
As a note, useing a game engine like Unity or Godot is nothing like writing a game from scratch. To under stand these engines you need to understand "prefabs" and "parenting".
* A prefab (Godot tucks this into an idea they call "Nodes") is basicly a collection of assets and properties that you can use in your game as many times as you want (called "instancing"). By default all of the instances are exactly the same as the prefab, however you can use scripting to make derived versions of the prefab. This allows you to easilly put the same thing (like generic NPC, bullets, or background stuff) on the screen without haveing to actually recreate them over and over again. This system can also be used on entire game modes (known as scenes). I know Godot does that I am not sure if Unity does.
* Parenting works in sets, there is the parent and the children. If the child moves nothing interesting happens, but if the parent moves all of the children move with it. In 3D modelling (it might affect more in any given engine) this affects things like what is in the scene, where something moves (translation), how it is spun (rotation), and it's size (scale). Now an important point is that all of these are relative to the parent. So if you rotate the parent 90 degrees the child will still be just as far away from the parent as before and both be on the same side of the parent as it was and faceing the same direction relative to the parent as it was. The real world example of this are the folders (or directories) on your computer. If you have a folder (the child) in a folder (the parent) then you can move it about however you wish, but as long as it is still a child of the parent folder then when you move the parent the child moves with it.
One of the WORSE things a programmer can do is is stray from Indstry Standards and this is what INDY programmers have a problem with, and create their own language and jardon and that just only complicate things.....
but, the point is we have a choice. We get to step back and try to figure out what is the right tool for the job, or if nessasary make a new one. Every one of these is a break from some previous standard and, at least at that time, every one of them offered its own unique advantages. By stepping out developers have the chance to show the world a better way. Granted most times the world sends it back like a pie to the face, but if no one ever tried computers would not be what they are today.
Fun note, Windows was a non industry standard compliant operating system created by an indie.
"If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person."
Generally speaking people have the right to control how they are presented in media (look up privacy and publicity rights for more details). So if you use an identifable person in a non "fair use" way, with out their permision, they can sue you. This is separate from copyright so the public domain has no effect on it.
NASA is a special case though, because almost every person in every NASA picture is identifiable just because of how exclusive the posibilty to be in those pictures are.
In theory you are right Tozan once something hits public domain it should (but again does not always) stay there. However, sometimes two very similar works are created completely independently of each other. In this case one of them could be public domain and the other proprietary. If you use the public domain one and the party that owns the other one finds you, with out having discovered the original one, to them your work will look like a "derived work", which is something copyright law does cover. This is where the publicly available credit comes in handy they can check to see if your claim is legit before even contacting you. However, if you do not have this they may choose to persue legal actions. In which case you can not prove you made it (because someone else did) and you may not be able to prove someone else did because things happen. In which case it becomes a question of wether or not your work is a derived work based almost exclusivly on how similar they look, which again they took action because they thought they could win. To be honest though this is a very unlikely case scenario and I have never even heard of a case where this happened (I have seen similar stuff on youtube, but then trademark law is usually also involved).
The weird other side is when two people make a derived work of the same public domain work (a likely example would be if you made a game about mythology). In which case even though both people are aware of each others work and that they do not infringe on each others IP, the less informed fans may accuse one of the works of ripping off the other. This is actually really common, but probably less harmful.
Okay, first off I would like to apologize. The tone in my first post on this topic was... harsh. Sorry about that.
Okay, to clarify that issue. In theory you do not have to credit anything in the public domain. I know of two problems with not citing your sources:
You imply you made everything not accounted for on your own. This is rude, but as you said "they signed on for it".
You throw your witness under the bus.
If someone claims you stole their intelectual property (IP), like another game company or a publisher, they can try to sue you. Last I heard what is at stake is everything that you made with the stolen IP (including money and awards) AND any damages you might have done to them. So larger companies do have a motivation to do this. With that at stake do you feel comfortable saying I can find my sources if I need them?
To be fair this is not likely to be a problem, I just felt I should mention it. If someone else tries to sue me over copyright I would like as much help as I can get and with a well cited credits page I would feel less vulnerable.
Anyway, as a reminder, I am not a lawyer and most of what I know is based on reading license agreements and what I over hear from people (most of which are also not lawers). So take it with a grain of salt I guess. That said I really do not know enough about you or your project to make even reasonably targeted legally relevant advice.
As a note I am not trying to be rude. I want to help, I just do not have a lot of information to work with. Sorry if this comes off poorly.
It is clear that you have a good idea about what the player will be doing and when, but you have not posted a why. Is your game about filling meters and collecting runes or is there some goal. Are you discovering new worlds, looking for a lost family member, seeking revenge, or trying to make a name for yourself?
Once you have established a loose story (do not "write a book") and a mood, things like choosing how to design your GUI or what abilities you need to have become easier. For example:
Space exploration gone bad: how about a mostly black GUI that has the beveled boxes design mentioned earlier, but with a metalic shine towards the edges to imply the shapes like debris in space.
Also if you find that some of the features you planned to include do not sit well with the story or mood, it might be a good idea to save them for a later game allowing you clear up room with your GUI.
Anyway, I hope that helps and sorry about the offense earlier.
So I would like to throw up some notes about the CC0 the way I read it, not nessarily the way it is.
As a reminder I am not a lawyer.
Quote: Tozan -------------------------------------------------- So I don't reocognize authors rights under that license because the law don't recognize their rights therefore it is not mandatory for me to have to credit all those authors who release their work under CCO. --------------------------------------------------
This is a mistake. The problem is not really with the authors though. It is with your peers. Your attribution is your first defense that the assets you use are not stolen. If you fail to attribute your assets you may be forced to find them again in an "or else" setting.
Though just to reiterate it is common practice and good form. When writing a research paper you sight your sources even if they are public domain. Why not here?
Quote: Tozan -------------------------------------------------- So the authors who release their work under this license have got no rights anymore unless they change to a different license other than CCO. --------------------------------------------------
To the best of my knowledge it is currently unknown whether or not the author of a creative work has the right to release his work into the public domain in any jurisdiction. So with that said in your jurisdiction the law might (or might not) recognise their rights.
Thankfully the CC0 is not just a public domain dedication though. It is also a license. This license gives you many of the rights you would have had if the work was in the public domain. Though, how many you actually get will change based on your jurisdiction.
As one final resort the CC0 also contains a promise: "Should any part of the License for any reason be judged legally invalid or ineffective under applicable law, such partial invalidity or ineffectiveness shall not invalidate the remainder of the License, and in such case Affirmer hereby affirms that he or she will not (i) exercise any of his or her remaining Copyright and Related Rights in the Work or (ii) assert any associated claims and causes of action with respect to the Work, in either case contrary to Affirmer's express Statement of Purpose." excerpt from the CC0 Licence section 3
So unless you are required to pursue a different license agreement it is pretty much public domain for all intents and purposes. (I have heard that there are some jurisdictions where the license is completly invalid and some corprate environments that will not allow it.)
To say that more clearly the author effectively can not change the license of the work. However they can give you a copy under special terms that as far as I know always trump the public domain (legally speaking). However, this would require your consent, which I imagine is rare in this setting.
Quote: Tozan -------------------------------------------------- but Those people who do release under CCO should understand that CCo is a license of zero rights, and yes that license does avoid all the legal hassels with the other issues with all these rights and stiuplations. --------------------------------------------------
Almost... Section 4a states that trademark and patent rights are not waived. Section 4c warns that parts of the work may not actually be CC0 >.>
There is also a chance that in some jurisdictions there are other rights that would not be affected by the CC0, but I do not know of any.
================================================== Off topic: As one final warning it might be possible in your jurisdiction for something in the public domain to be put back in the private domain.
Since things in the public domain belong to the public the public can do with them what it wishes. Including hand them over to some one else. Since the government is the representation of the public this choice is in their hands. If that bothers you you might want to lobby about it.
That by the way is why I think OGA needs another non attribution required license.
Looks like your project is gaining some attention now. Good luck!
I personally am open to seeing more licenses here on Open Game Art. However, I am unsure what the best picks would be. Looking at the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Open Source Initiative's (OSI) lists would be a good start, but many of those are intended for programs and may or may not be suitable here.
There are weakness in the gradient provided here. For example if you want a license that does not require credit you have to choose the CC0, which is probably a poor choice. What if you want a strong copyleft license like the GPL, but do not want credit unless the file is distributed as a resource like the zlib? There is no license here (or anywhere else I know of for that matter) that can fill that role.
Side note there is no "just credit me" license on OGA. The closest thing to that is either the OGA-BY ( http://static.opengameart.org/OGA-BY-3.0.txt ).
Please note that the GPL (version 2 and 3) define the "source code" as follows:
So although a png is an acceptable form of "source code" distribution (for images) you have to be careful not to destroy data useful for editing (like layers for example). Since these are generally not wanted when using the assets in game a separate "source code" distribution of assets may be useful.
Of course if your file does not have this sort of information (and you do not add it) you are probably fine.
You have asked poorly.
Animators are like actors, in order to give a good performance they need to know their character, their part on the stage, and their part of the stage. You have not covered these particularly well and in so doing tied the hands of anyone who wants to help.
The following things are very useful:
* What project is this for?
* Who is the character that you need animated?
* What is the direction of the game? (Cartoony/Realistic, Violent/Peacefull, etc.)
* Are their any events that would affect how characters act?
* What are the technical limitations for the project? (Often it is best to point to your engine's documentation or ask the lead programmer.)
* When will the project be considered done?
* What resources are available to the artist?
* When do you need it by?
* How do you need updated on progress?
==================================================
I think you did a great job on the model by the way. The only concerns I have are that:
* The scarf is made up of single sided quads. This will cause problems if backface culling is used.
* You IK rigged the arms. FK makes animating the arms more tedious, but a lot easier to make look natural. (FK rigged fingers are probably not worth it.)
* The IK rigging on the legs is tied to the shins. Ideally the IK control point is on the bottom of the feet so you can easily place the character's feet on the ground.
* You are missing grip bones in both your characters hands and on the weapon.
* You have a high number of bones (72). One engine I have read up on looses the ability to use hardware acceleration for your character if your character has more than 75. I would recommend getting rid of the palm.01 - palm.04 L/R bones and the heel.02.L/R bones. I feel they are not helping much if at all.
Good luck on your projects, I hope this helped.
==================================================
P.S. Have you heard of Blender's UV Project Modifier?
http://www.blender.org/manual/modifiers/modify/uv_project.html
If combined with a clever set up this can make for some very convincing anime style eyes. I have doubts about it's portability though.
I think the best answer can be found here:
http://ss64.com/nt/call.html
If you would prefer to stick with goto that page was here:
http://ss64.com/nt/goto.html
I am not very experienced with the command line, but I think this looks like a cool website.
I do not think the problem is that bart is not interested in this. He just seems to be really busy right now...
I think there is a lot that could be done to improve the license selection process on OGA, however I am not sure how best to go about it. In an ideal case I would like to see a license added some where between OGA-BY and the CC0 (that is a really big gap if you think about it.) and an instructional program added to help developers and artists understand some of the legal concerns with various IP laws and how the licenses here apply to that. Quite frankly the FAQ does not even come close to covering it.
I have about run out of time for now so I guess the question is if you could change what the FAQ says about just the CC-by what would you make it say?
Just a note to anyone who may be seeking "legal advise", get a lawyer. OGA is a community of artists, some digital and some interactive, do to the nature of "Intellectual Property Laws" a decent number of people here have spent some time studing licenses and other related things. That said none of us know everything and the laws in one place are different in other places. The conversations we have here are like peers talking to each other about a problem faceing them all. Do not mistake this for fact. Either do the homework or get a lawyer, if problems come up you have no one to blaim but yourself.
Anyway, I guess I will check back later (probably with in two weeks).
First thank you for your detailed feed back. It may prove helpful in future developments.
I would like to take the time to comment on a few things though.
Tozan to the best of my knowledge most people do not use batch code for game development. That language was designed for something else and lacks the speed and functions that at least I would like out of a game development language. It is possible to add batch script support to Godot however you would have to write a new module in C++ in order to do it ( See: https://github.com/okamstudio/godot/wiki/custom_modules ). However, I am unaware of any game 3D game engines that support batch by default. A quick Google search does turn up batch game engine but I do not know how much help they would be.
Being some what experienced with both programs I can tell you that Godot and Blender have completely different bad interfaces. However, the point remains. Godots interface is not for everyone and haveing a background in a Unix based operating system and 3D modeling are huge assets. I expect this to improve some over time. In part because the engine has been out for about one year now, haveing just reached version 1.1, and is still missing a lot of documentation. All that said, I doubt Godot will ever become so user friendly anyone can just grab it and go. The online documentation can be found here: https://github.com/okamstudio/godot/wiki
As a note, useing a game engine like Unity or Godot is nothing like writing a game from scratch. To under stand these engines you need to understand "prefabs" and "parenting".
* A prefab (Godot tucks this into an idea they call "Nodes") is basicly a collection of assets and properties that you can use in your game as many times as you want (called "instancing"). By default all of the instances are exactly the same as the prefab, however you can use scripting to make derived versions of the prefab. This allows you to easilly put the same thing (like generic NPC, bullets, or background stuff) on the screen without haveing to actually recreate them over and over again. This system can also be used on entire game modes (known as scenes). I know Godot does that I am not sure if Unity does.
* Parenting works in sets, there is the parent and the children. If the child moves nothing interesting happens, but if the parent moves all of the children move with it. In 3D modelling (it might affect more in any given engine) this affects things like what is in the scene, where something moves (translation), how it is spun (rotation), and it's size (scale). Now an important point is that all of these are relative to the parent. So if you rotate the parent 90 degrees the child will still be just as far away from the parent as before and both be on the same side of the parent as it was and faceing the same direction relative to the parent as it was. The real world example of this are the folders (or directories) on your computer. If you have a folder (the child) in a folder (the parent) then you can move it about however you wish, but as long as it is still a child of the parent folder then when you move the parent the child moves with it.
Quote: Tozan
--------------------------------------------------
One of the WORSE things a programmer can do is is stray from Indstry Standards and this is what INDY programmers have a problem with, and create their own language and jardon and that just only complicate things.....
--------------------------------------------------
Nope, today we have to choose from any of these programing laguages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages
any of the image formats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats
any of these 3D fomats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_formats#3-D_graphics
and any of these audio formats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format#List_of_formats
but, the point is we have a choice. We get to step back and try to figure out what is the right tool for the job, or if nessasary make a new one. Every one of these is a break from some previous standard and, at least at that time, every one of them offered its own unique advantages. By stepping out developers have the chance to show the world a better way. Granted most times the world sends it back like a pie to the face, but if no one ever tried computers would not be what they are today.
Fun note, Windows was a non industry standard compliant operating system created by an indie.
"If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person."
From: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html
Generally speaking people have the right to control how they are presented in media (look up privacy and publicity rights for more details). So if you use an identifable person in a non "fair use" way, with out their permision, they can sue you. This is separate from copyright so the public domain has no effect on it.
NASA is a special case though, because almost every person in every NASA picture is identifiable just because of how exclusive the posibilty to be in those pictures are.
==================================================
Capbros is correct about what I was getting at.
In theory you are right Tozan once something hits public domain it should (but again does not always) stay there. However, sometimes two very similar works are created completely independently of each other. In this case one of them could be public domain and the other proprietary. If you use the public domain one and the party that owns the other one finds you, with out having discovered the original one, to them your work will look like a "derived work", which is something copyright law does cover. This is where the publicly available credit comes in handy they can check to see if your claim is legit before even contacting you. However, if you do not have this they may choose to persue legal actions. In which case you can not prove you made it (because someone else did) and you may not be able to prove someone else did because things happen. In which case it becomes a question of wether or not your work is a derived work based almost exclusivly on how similar they look, which again they took action because they thought they could win. To be honest though this is a very unlikely case scenario and I have never even heard of a case where this happened (I have seen similar stuff on youtube, but then trademark law is usually also involved).
The weird other side is when two people make a derived work of the same public domain work (a likely example would be if you made a game about mythology). In which case even though both people are aware of each others work and that they do not infringe on each others IP, the less informed fans may accuse one of the works of ripping off the other. This is actually really common, but probably less harmful.
==================================================
P.S. I like the new interface ^.^
Okay, first off I would like to apologize. The tone in my first post on this topic was... harsh. Sorry about that.
Okay, to clarify that issue. In theory you do not have to credit anything in the public domain. I know of two problems with not citing your sources:
If someone claims you stole their intelectual property (IP), like another game company or a publisher, they can try to sue you. Last I heard what is at stake is everything that you made with the stolen IP (including money and awards) AND any damages you might have done to them. So larger companies do have a motivation to do this. With that at stake do you feel comfortable saying I can find my sources if I need them?
To be fair this is not likely to be a problem, I just felt I should mention it. If someone else tries to sue me over copyright I would like as much help as I can get and with a well cited credits page I would feel less vulnerable.
Anyway, as a reminder, I am not a lawyer and most of what I know is based on reading license agreements and what I over hear from people (most of which are also not lawers). So take it with a grain of salt I guess. That said I really do not know enough about you or your project to make even reasonably targeted legally relevant advice.
==================================================
So to try and help by being actually on topic...
As a note I am not trying to be rude. I want to help, I just do not have a lot of information to work with. Sorry if this comes off poorly.
It is clear that you have a good idea about what the player will be doing and when, but you have not posted a why. Is your game about filling meters and collecting runes or is there some goal. Are you discovering new worlds, looking for a lost family member, seeking revenge, or trying to make a name for yourself?
Once you have established a loose story (do not "write a book") and a mood, things like choosing how to design your GUI or what abilities you need to have become easier. For example:
Also if you find that some of the features you planned to include do not sit well with the story or mood, it might be a good idea to save them for a later game allowing you clear up room with your GUI.
Anyway, I hope that helps and sorry about the offense earlier.
So I would like to throw up some notes about the CC0 the way I read it, not nessarily the way it is.
As a reminder I am not a lawyer.
Quote: Tozan
--------------------------------------------------
So I don't reocognize authors rights under that license because the law don't recognize their rights therefore it is not mandatory for me to have to credit all those authors who release their work under CCO.
--------------------------------------------------
This is a mistake. The problem is not really with the authors though. It is with your peers. Your attribution is your first defense that the assets you use are not stolen. If you fail to attribute your assets you may be forced to find them again in an "or else" setting.
Though just to reiterate it is common practice and good form. When writing a research paper you sight your sources even if they are public domain. Why not here?
Quote: Tozan
--------------------------------------------------
So the authors who release their work under this license have got no rights anymore unless they change to a different license other than CCO.
--------------------------------------------------
To the best of my knowledge it is currently unknown whether or not the author of a creative work has the right to release his work into the public domain in any jurisdiction. So with that said in your jurisdiction the law might (or might not) recognise their rights.
Thankfully the CC0 is not just a public domain dedication though. It is also a license. This license gives you many of the rights you would have had if the work was in the public domain. Though, how many you actually get will change based on your jurisdiction.
As one final resort the CC0 also contains a promise:
"Should any part of the License for any reason be judged legally invalid or ineffective under applicable law, such partial invalidity or ineffectiveness shall not invalidate the remainder of the License, and in such case Affirmer hereby affirms that he or she will not (i) exercise any of his or her remaining Copyright and Related Rights in the Work or (ii) assert any associated claims and causes of action with respect to the Work, in either case contrary to Affirmer's express Statement of Purpose."
excerpt from the CC0 Licence section 3
So unless you are required to pursue a different license agreement it is pretty much public domain for all intents and purposes. (I have heard that there are some jurisdictions where the license is completly invalid and some corprate environments that will not allow it.)
To say that more clearly the author effectively can not change the license of the work. However they can give you a copy under special terms that as far as I know always trump the public domain (legally speaking). However, this would require your consent, which I imagine is rare in this setting.
Quote: Tozan
--------------------------------------------------
but Those people who do release under CCO should understand
that CCo is a license of zero rights, and yes that license
does avoid all the legal hassels with the other issues with
all these rights and stiuplations.
--------------------------------------------------
Almost...
Section 4a states that trademark and patent rights are not waived.
Section 4c warns that parts of the work may not actually be CC0 >.>
There is also a chance that in some jurisdictions there are other rights that would not be affected by the CC0, but I do not know of any.
==================================================
Off topic:
As one final warning it might be possible in your jurisdiction for something in the public domain to be put back in the private domain.
Since things in the public domain belong to the public the public can do with them what it wishes. Including hand them over to some one else. Since the government is the representation of the public this choice is in their hands. If that bothers you you might want to lobby about it.
That by the way is why I think OGA needs another non attribution required license.
Pages