Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Pages: [1] 2 3
Print
Author Topic: [License] Art/assets/media license: GPLv3, BY-SA 3.0 or compatible  (Read 24070 times)
qubodup
Admin
Community member

Posts: 261



View Profile Email
« on: February 27, 2009, 01:54:07 PM »

To make PARPG a fully free software/open source game the art can be licensed under gpl3 or cc-by-sa 3 or both or 'compatible' licenses that allow re-licensing as one of the two mentioned.


http://wiki.parpg.net/License



Old:


edit

There has been a decision: http://forums.parpg.net/index.php?topic=39.msg1288#msg1288

Art in PARPG is dual-licensed under GPL 3.0 & CC-BY-SA 3.0

/edit

PARPG is an open source project, the source code will be released under a free software license. It is however not clear under what license(s) the game content will be released.

My question is: under what terms would you, as an artist, release your art for PARPG?

The minimal requirement is that art may be re-distributed (for distributing the game) and modified (for enhancing the media whithout the original artist be required to be present).

What PARPG would offer for it is attribution. Artists would be given credit to in an AUTHOR.txt text file and the game's credits. If anyone would use the media in their own project, they would be required to give credit to the artist.

In addition, art could be copylefted, which means that all modified versions would have to be licensed under the same terms (they also would allow to be distributed and modified..)

The main issue: allowing commercial use of art.

Open source software can be used commercially. This rule is one of the main principles of open source and free software.

For PARPG this means that if the media can be used commercially, that the game can be included in open source operating system's software repositories and that it can be considered completely free software. (Otherwise it would be an open source game engine with proprietary game content).

Often I hear that if commercial usage is allowed, the content will be abused by evil corporations for profit. This table shows some high quality open source games. In the rightmost column you can see which of them have freely (free for commercial use) licensed media. I do not know of any kind of 'abuse' of these games' content except for other open source game projects using it as placeholders whilst giving credit to the origin of the art.

As you can see, my opinion is biased towards "allowing commercial use is good!". What do you think of this?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 02:17:26 PM by qubodup » Logged
Lamoot
Community member

Posts: 161


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2009, 03:25:15 PM »

I'm cool with commercial use - as long as its properly credited.
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2009, 03:30:35 PM »

I'm no artist but I think that using a license that permits commercial usage is a good idea. When we force attribution and / or share-alike, chances are _really_ small that somebody simply steals it and makes money with it.

EDIT:
The different options of the CC licenses are described here: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

EDIT2:
License article at the wiki: http://wiki.parpg.net/License
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 03:35:32 PM by mvBarracuda » Logged
zenbitz
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2009, 09:12:45 PM »

I think if I was an artist, I would be concerned with people "ripping" the art and using it is some totally different commercial project.
Like if someone makes a 3D gun model, and it gets re purposed in a totally different game.

I presume one of the myraid open licensing things covers this.  As for the code/game mechanics, I am fine with it being "at least as free" as the media.    I am even free with "no license at all" but I presume others have more restrictions than me, and I am cool with that too!

Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Lamoot
Community member

Posts: 161


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2009, 10:05:06 AM »

It depends on how useful our gun models will be to those games. Since we're pre-rendering all the sprites, the models and textures themselves won't necessaryly look good in any other role than a sprite - for example in a real-time 3d. It would be foolish to overdo the quality of the source models beyond what we need for quality sprites.

In addition, being a hard-core rpg project, we might get feral fans to defend any wrong-doings done to this project, like using art in a non-licensy way.

I think the likelyhood of anyone using and abusing our art to make big big bucks is very very small, we're too niche and too far from the standard art practices in the games industry. The only projects that could probably use our art are more on the marginal/indie side. And as long as they credit us, I have no objections.
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2009, 11:04:01 PM »

I'll simply go ahead and make a proposal to get things started :-)

Are the currently interested artists fine with releasing their work under the following Creative Common terms?
* Attribution: to ensure that proper credit to the original author is given.
* Share Alike: to ensure that if anyone modifies the content, he has to release the content under the same terms to others.
* Commercial: permit commercial usage as this is essential for open source repositories to actually add the content to their repositories.

If there are no objections, I would like to set things in stone over the weekend before any assets get created.
Logged
zenbitz
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2009, 04:26:37 AM »

creative commons stuff is ok with me.
Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Sirren
Community member

Posts: 365


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2009, 06:28:34 AM »

I'm fine with Creative Common terms as well.
Logged
Lamoot
Community member

Posts: 161


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2009, 10:53:12 AM »

Quote
Are the currently interested artists fine with releasing their work under the following Creative Common terms?
* Attribution: to ensure that proper credit to the original author is given.
* Share Alike: to ensure that if anyone modifies the content, he has to release the content under the same terms to others.
* Commercial: permit commercial usage as this is essential for open source repositories to actually add the content to their repositories.

I do.
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2009, 12:44:37 PM »

Oki great :-) the deadline is at Saturday. If everyone is fine with it (read: nobody brings up argument why a different license would be more appropriate), I'll set things in stone at Sunday and announce the decision in the next news update at Monday.
Logged
eleazzaar
Community member

Posts: 255


attempting lucidity


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2009, 06:24:41 AM »

I've done stuff under various CC and GPL licenses.  I don't have a strong preference, though i generally would prefer that my content was useable in projects that have different licenses.
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2009, 10:10:30 AM »

So it's CC 3.0 BY-SA. Thanks for contributing to the discussion :-)
Logged
qubodup
Admin
Community member

Posts: 261



View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2009, 10:58:21 PM »

eleazzaar wrote: I generally would prefer that my content was useable in projects that have different licenses.

I am very glad to meet such an attitude.

To satisfy this wish, which I share, I want to suggest to dual-license the media in PARPG under the CC-BY-SA and the GPL.

This would mean that one could use, modify & redistribute media under terms of one or the other license, or under both (dual-license the product again).

This would satisfy some projects' need for 100%-GPLed content, for example Nexuiz, FreeCiv, OpenArena, Hero of Allacrost, Battle for Wesnoth. (See details in this list.)

Some people are skeptical about CC-licenses, version 3 for example was created with the help of Debian, though the debian-legal team isnt' 100% satisfied with the results. (See last paragraph of this overview)

There is a natural reaction 'GPL is for code, not art' but the reality is that it has been applied to all kinds of media used in games and is also designed to be a general-purpose license.

What do you think of this?
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2009, 12:31:47 PM »

I personally wouldn't mind dual-licensing for assets if some open source projects can't / don't want to use Creative Common ones. How do the interested graphics artists feel about it?
Logged
Lamoot
Community member

Posts: 161


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2009, 03:36:07 PM »

No real objections, we'll just need a list of licenses and rules how to categorise the art assets and how to indicate/inform that they are under a particular license.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
Print
Jump to: