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 25808 times)
Sirren
Community member

Posts: 365


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2009, 10:36:08 PM »

No problem for me too. Anyway, for me the whole matter is about getting proper credit if somebody uses my sprites in a different project than PARpG.
Logged
qubodup
Admin
Community member

Posts: 261



View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2009, 11:18:38 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.
My suggesting is to license all media under both licenses. (Or did you understand correctly and this explanation is superfluous?)

You're right about the necessity to indicate the license of files. (especially because different files have different authors)

I suggest to have a description file for each file or set of files (a set of files can be files that are in one directory or that have the same prefix) the description file would be either filename .. "-license.txt" or prefix .. "-license.txt" or folder .. "-license.txt". ( ".." is how you add a variable to a string in lua)

An alternative would be how cube2 does it: each contributor has his own root folder, which then contains category folders, if needed.

I think cube2 also uses config files to locate media, so there is no need for a strict folder structure. That might be actually good, since small contributors wouldn't need to create a hierarchy in their media folders, while strong contributors can do so (though they will have more work at writing the file-location-configuration-files. ... is this clear?
Logged
christoph
Community member

Posts: 2



View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2009, 06:00:45 PM »

Well if you decide to dual-license the artwork under CC/GPL please make sure to fullfill the source requirement in your releases, otherwise the GPL is pretty useless. I'm not sure the GPL makes for an good artwork license anyway ... especially the souce is somewhat strange to define there
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2009, 06:23:31 PM »

Source would be the original model format and the textures I guess? And the compiled version is the rendered image?
Logged
eleazzaar
Community member

Posts: 255


attempting lucidity


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2009, 07:56:58 PM »

2 questions:

* Is the art/media license supposed to also cover the written (story) content?

* Would players who write their own story content be free to release it under the license of their choice, or be bound to stick with ours?
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2009, 10:26:52 PM »

That depends on the writers: what kind of license would you prefer?

If players take our scripts, modify them and we released them under a share-alike license, they can release them under any license of their choice but they would HAVE to offer them under the same license as well; basically dual-licensing is still allowed this way.
Logged
eleazzaar
Community member

Posts: 255


attempting lucidity


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2009, 10:47:54 PM »

I think the license chosen previously in this thread is fine for the core written content as well.


If players take our scripts, modify them....

Yeah, but the way things are shaping up a player could create an episode with completely new content.  Ideally they would all release under the same license, but realistically some of them will want to reserve more rights-- which of course is their right (i think-- not a law student) unless we include some sort of restrictive EULA type agreement that stipulates if they use our language to create episides... blah blah...

Not that i think we want to do that.... it's just been the general assumption so far that any player created content will be free for anyone to do anything with.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2009, 10:50:36 PM by eleazzaar » Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2009, 10:55:28 PM »

Yep, it does make no sense to force players to release their content that they've created from scrach under a specific license that we would choose. I seriously doubt that it's possible anyway :-)
Logged
qubodup
Admin
Community member

Posts: 261



View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2009, 11:10:29 AM »

Source would be the original model format and the textures I guess? And the compiled version is the rendered image?
I share this interpretation of source/binary under GPL.
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2009, 04:31:43 PM »

Today's the last chance to bring up arguments against CC BY-SA 3.0 & GPL 3.0 dual-licensing for assets. In case no additional arguments brought up until tomorrow, we'll set it in stone and annoucement the decision in the tomorrow's news update.
Logged
christoph
Community member

Posts: 2



View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2009, 12:51:47 PM »

Source would be the original model format and the textures I guess? And the compiled version is the rendered image?
I share this interpretation of source/binary under GPL.
Me too. The Point is that the texture might have to not be scaled down or transformed in another lossy way Wink

I have nothing against GPLv3 and as long as CC v3 is kept alongside there won't be trouble with the rights needed for free software but the GPL part might become useless Wink
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2009, 02:52:34 PM »

Oki, it's Saturday :-) CC BY-SA 3.0 + GPL 3.0 for assets is now agreed upon.
Logged
dawith
Community member

Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2009, 12:00:29 PM »

Hello PARPGers Smiley How are you?
About licensing the assets with GPL; freedom 1 says: "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
So, applying that license to my music (delivered to your project as ogg vorbis) I believe it's not sufficient to provide, as source, a raw WAV. The intent of the license is to study how the program (or, here, a song) works, so I interpret that as sources I should provide used audio clips, synthesizers' parameters, effect plug-ins' parameters, midi tracks (used for synthesizers) and so on and so forth, plus the project file of the program used to put all that together. Only in that way someone could study how my "program" works - it's a lot of work to put that together in order to satisfy that license - because here my intention isn't to provide material to someone to learn how I make music, but to just make a song for your project.
That's why I'd prefer if any of my songs would be included in you project/game, to be licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0 + WTFPL 2.0 - Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/). It would keep things nice and easy + total free redistribution (though CC license is useless in that case, WTFPL is enough, as anyone not wishing to use my songs without giving me credits and share alike, than he could, because he'd go for terms of WTFPL (which is very fine by me) - if I understand dual licensing rightly).
So what do you think, PARPGers? Would it be fine if my music wouldn't be licensed under GPL?
Logged
qubodup
Admin
Community member

Posts: 261



View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2009, 12:28:23 PM »

So what do you think, PARPGers? Would it be fine if my music wouldn't be licensed under GPL?
If you provide your work under a GPL-compatible license, which the WTFPL is, that would be fine.

Your interpretation of the GPL is a good one, I agree that providing the details used in the software to generate the music would be a much better source, but the lack of open formats and standards in the area of music creation makes providing and using such information impractical to such a degree, that the non-optimal 'source' (lossless audio) is a good enough solution.

So either way, I think there's no risk in being accused of not following the GPL, by only providing lossless audio and using WTFPL or similar, GPL-compatible, is just as fine.


By the way, I recommend .flac over .wav
Logged
maximinus
Community member

Posts: 694



View Profile Email
« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2009, 01:52:07 PM »

By the way, I recommend .flac over .wav

Flac is *good*. I have about 300GB of Flac sat on my external hard drive. Although to be honest, for a game compressed sound is usually OK.
Logged

Science is open-source religion
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Print
Jump to: