Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Asset dual licensing infrastructure proposal  (Read 4099 times)
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« on: January 17, 2011, 08:44:23 PM »

I've created an infrastructure proposal to explore the details how dual licensing of assets should work:
http://wiki.parpg.net/Asset_dual_licensing

Right now we use a dual licensing policy for assets in theory, but all assets in SVN are actually only released under CC BY-SA 3.0 according to their <asset>.license file. As dual licensing might be pretty confusing to some artists (how does the GPL actually apply to art?), we should either clarify what releasing art under GPL actually means or get rid of the dual licensing policy.
Logged
Technomage
Admin
Community member

Posts: 80



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2011, 06:35:13 PM »

I'd like to hear from someone with experience in OSS licensing on this issue. My concern with using the GPL to license non-code content (i.e. assets) is that the GPL is written primarily to handle code, and has many sections that simply cannot be applied to e.g. graphics or writing. In particular, the concept of "source code" does not really exist for graphics, writing, music etc., nor does the concept of "static/dynamic-linking", both of which are mentioned in the core sections of the GPL.

I did a bit a research on the issue. Wesnoth does indeed use the GPL to license assets, but not without concern (see the discussion at http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=25322). Others have expressed similar concern about using the GPL for assets:

Anyway, I don't have any experience with licensing so I can't really conclude much from these discussions other than its a contentious issue.
Logged

"There are more atoms in the period at the end of this sentence than you can count in a lifetime." Science is awesome.

mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2011, 09:44:22 PM »

Coolio, thanks for the research Technomage.

I'll take a closer look into the topic down the line; your links will be an excellent starting point in this regard.
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2011, 06:09:58 AM »

I've chatted with some guys from #fsf @ freenode and asked them about their interpretation of GPL licensing for assets.

They've redirected me to their licensing mail address and I've mailed them a couple of questions. I'll let you know as soon as they've replied to it.
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2011, 01:23:13 AM »

One of the FSF volunteers replied to my email recently. Here's his reply:

Quote
Hello and thanks for writing in.

> > One of our developers proposed to dual license our assets (graphics,
> > sounds, etc.) under GPL and CC BY-SA 3.0. Unfortunately he wasn't sure
> > how the GPL actually applies to assets and if there's a commonly
> > accepted interpretation on this.
> > Let's assume this use case: we're using the GPL to license our assets. A 3d
> > graphics designer on the team models an object in Blender and renders it.
> > The rendered object (simply a .png file) would be licensed under GPL. What
> > kind of files would he have to release under the GPL as well?
> > * 3d model itself (.blend file)?
> > * Used textures to produce the model?
> > * Lighting setup to render the model?
> > * Camera setup to render the model?
Section 1 of GPLv3 states (but the same is true of GPLv2):

``The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities.''

So you'll want to include everything needed in order produce the
finished PNG file.

I hope this answers your question. If you have further questions please
feel free to ask and I'll do my best to expedite my reply.

--
I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice

   Regards, Y*** R*****
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to: