i actually haven't fiddled with it again since then. it is hard to get into the engine when i can't testrun the game. i will see if the new project process extracts the full zip package tho.
yeah that is much better with the wiggle. the version with more legs is best. i am not well versed in what makes lpc style "official" but it looks like centipede to me!
And I understand that some people are more committed to "share-alike" as part of the FOSS ethos. Just seems increasingly clear that that principle comes with some costs.
Yeah, I understand why people use SA for art and GPL for code, strong copyleft keeps derivatives "libre" as well. I just disagree with it. My opinion is, if it is Public Domain, it is libre. If there are restrictions on it, it's not. Restrictions = Not free.
I don't think the 2011 version of Drupal is gonna make this proposed update easy though........
yeah but medicinestorm can tell who ticked the box for agree to license under later version. it's just that we can't. so a system wide update could only work for those who had checked that box. i'm kinda in the camp that the site is fine, authors license however they want, end users of assets are bound to do their homework.
if someone wants to upload their artwork to oga, license it as cc-by 3.0, then get a sleaze lawyer to troll the internet looking for games that used that artwork but didn't attribute the original work "perfectly" then that would suck, but i think it is unlikely. as i said before, this is more of an issue with stock photos.
if i got a letter from a copyleft troll "law firm" as described in the article, i would wipe my butt with it, then call the aclu and see if they could hook me up with some liberal young lawyer to defend me if it ever came to actual legal proceedings. i highly doubt it ever would, this is an attempt to extort people into paying out of fear that they will get sued. my take anyways.
but perhaps a header warning similar to the one about nfts could be an easy compromise? "If you are intending to upload artwork to OGA under CC-By 3.0 license with the intention of engaging in what is colloquially known as 'copyleft trolling' then you may be commiting fraud."
seems like the scam is mostly being run for stock photos, but i could imagine someone doing this with game art. hire someone to make a bunch of consistently styled sprites and tiles on commission, with the caveat that they are working as your employee and the copyright to the work they produce as part of their job will be automatically transferred to you as part of the contract (par for the course with fiverr, by the way) then upload the lot of it to oga, itch, and other places as CC-BY 3.0 (nothing less than 3 is accepted on oga) then sit back and wait for some tinkerers to make some games with it and hope they attribute wrong. seems unlikely and alot of bother, compared to taking pictures of lasagna and waiting for someone to put it on their blog.
there is a large body of work here that is cc-by 3.0, and many of the authors have allowed it to be upgraded to cc-by 4.0. BUT we can't see that under the current system, one has to contact MedicineStorm and ask her if you can upgrade licenses. a system wide upgrade for everything that was ticked with "The authors of this content agree to license it under later versions of the licenses they selected above." would be feasible i think? then what do we do about all the cc-by 3.0 stuff from 2012 made by some obscure japanese artist whose original webpage exists only on the wayback machine?
i don't know what the answer is. as an aside, the only thing i have on here that is not CC0 is this which inherited CC-BY 3.0 from this. i have no worry that surt is gonna sue me or anyone else over the use of twin dragon's head and the turtle sprite, but if surt checked twin dragons as upgradeable to later version of license, i will update rynosaur to by 4. problem is, this is just one derivative work by one frankenspriter, among thousands of great cc-by 3 artwork made by real artists. how do we fix this? is it even fixable?
again, sounds like a good argument for CC0 to me. attribution is nice, and everyone deserves credit for their work. but i personally would rather my work have more utility and be more free in exchange for not demanding credit.
i lean towards pure coincidence, but only out of feeling, not out of any evidence. it is possible that there is some common inspirational ancestor to both of them? interesting find, without a doubt.
edit: i read the gist of the plot from the wikipedia article, and the "girl gets sucked into her video game world after dying" plot basis is very cool and resonates with me somehow. but anime is not my thing, so i doubt i will ever consume this.
yeah, totally. cc0. cc0. cc0.
cc0.
i actually haven't fiddled with it again since then. it is hard to get into the engine when i can't testrun the game. i will see if the new project process extracts the full zip package tho.
yeah that is much better with the wiggle. the version with more legs is best. i am not well versed in what makes lpc style "official" but it looks like centipede to me!
3 ideas
i think during the animation more needs to move than just the legs, the centipede's segments should wiggle.
i also think it would look better with the segments diminishing slightly. like attacched, but probably my quickie edit made them too small.
add some more shading, with 2 more orange variations, to have more of the round lpc look/feel.
good luck.
and the firmament opened up, and the goddess did showether her handiwork
Yeah, I understand why people use SA for art and GPL for code, strong copyleft keeps derivatives "libre" as well. I just disagree with it. My opinion is, if it is Public Domain, it is libre. If there are restrictions on it, it's not. Restrictions = Not free.
I don't think the 2011 version of Drupal is gonna make this proposed update easy though........
yeah but medicinestorm can tell who ticked the box for agree to license under later version. it's just that we can't. so a system wide update could only work for those who had checked that box. i'm kinda in the camp that the site is fine, authors license however they want, end users of assets are bound to do their homework.
if someone wants to upload their artwork to oga, license it as cc-by 3.0, then get a sleaze lawyer to troll the internet looking for games that used that artwork but didn't attribute the original work "perfectly" then that would suck, but i think it is unlikely. as i said before, this is more of an issue with stock photos.
if i got a letter from a copyleft troll "law firm" as described in the article, i would wipe my butt with it, then call the aclu and see if they could hook me up with some liberal young lawyer to defend me if it ever came to actual legal proceedings. i highly doubt it ever would, this is an attempt to extort people into paying out of fear that they will get sued. my take anyways.
but perhaps a header warning similar to the one about nfts could be an easy compromise? "If you are intending to upload artwork to OGA under CC-By 3.0 license with the intention of engaging in what is colloquially known as 'copyleft trolling' then you may be commiting fraud."
sounds like a good argument for CC0 to me.
seems like the scam is mostly being run for stock photos, but i could imagine someone doing this with game art. hire someone to make a bunch of consistently styled sprites and tiles on commission, with the caveat that they are working as your employee and the copyright to the work they produce as part of their job will be automatically transferred to you as part of the contract (par for the course with fiverr, by the way) then upload the lot of it to oga, itch, and other places as CC-BY 3.0 (nothing less than 3 is accepted on oga) then sit back and wait for some tinkerers to make some games with it and hope they attribute wrong. seems unlikely and alot of bother, compared to taking pictures of lasagna and waiting for someone to put it on their blog.
there is a large body of work here that is cc-by 3.0, and many of the authors have allowed it to be upgraded to cc-by 4.0. BUT we can't see that under the current system, one has to contact MedicineStorm and ask her if you can upgrade licenses. a system wide upgrade for everything that was ticked with "The authors of this content agree to license it under later versions of the licenses they selected above." would be feasible i think? then what do we do about all the cc-by 3.0 stuff from 2012 made by some obscure japanese artist whose original webpage exists only on the wayback machine?
i don't know what the answer is. as an aside, the only thing i have on here that is not CC0 is this which inherited CC-BY 3.0 from this. i have no worry that surt is gonna sue me or anyone else over the use of twin dragon's head and the turtle sprite, but if surt checked twin dragons as upgradeable to later version of license, i will update rynosaur to by 4. problem is, this is just one derivative work by one frankenspriter, among thousands of great cc-by 3 artwork made by real artists. how do we fix this? is it even fixable?
again, sounds like a good argument for CC0 to me. attribution is nice, and everyone deserves credit for their work. but i personally would rather my work have more utility and be more free in exchange for not demanding credit.
the site is correct. mp3s are the devil.
i lean towards pure coincidence, but only out of feeling, not out of any evidence. it is possible that there is some common inspirational ancestor to both of them? interesting find, without a doubt.
edit: i read the gist of the plot from the wikipedia article, and the "girl gets sucked into her video game world after dying" plot basis is very cool and resonates with me somehow. but anime is not my thing, so i doubt i will ever consume this.
Pages