well, gundam isn't CC.
I made certain parts(see moders resource thread) CC. However, unless something is extracted as a seperate release from the core gundam package the gundam package it's self is not CC.
The reason I offered to CC parts of the mod is that certain parts do belong to me and not bandai.
Licenses and your mods
Moderator: Moderators
@smoth
Yep, the GPL is about charity. Work made on a GPL project is effectively anonymous contribution - the GPL was intended for projects to have their own identity separate from their contributors. When one contributor loses interest, the next can pick it up and keep working on it.
If you want to retain ownership of a project, the GPL is not for you.
However, there are many projects that are built on GPL codebases (such as all the Quake 3 derivatives) that retain their ownership of their product by placing a limited license on all non-code content (textures, maps, etc) - while this approach is inappropriate for Debian, most distros will accept packages in "open code / restricted content" form.
Do note that your code is already "effectively" even more permissive than the GPL, since you release all your BOS code publicly with no-strings-attached (this sort of distribution is generally covered by the BSD license)... unless you ask for attribution? I haven't checked.
Yep, the GPL is about charity. Work made on a GPL project is effectively anonymous contribution - the GPL was intended for projects to have their own identity separate from their contributors. When one contributor loses interest, the next can pick it up and keep working on it.
If you want to retain ownership of a project, the GPL is not for you.
However, there are many projects that are built on GPL codebases (such as all the Quake 3 derivatives) that retain their ownership of their product by placing a limited license on all non-code content (textures, maps, etc) - while this approach is inappropriate for Debian, most distros will accept packages in "open code / restricted content" form.
Do note that your code is already "effectively" even more permissive than the GPL, since you release all your BOS code publicly with no-strings-attached (this sort of distribution is generally covered by the BSD license)... unless you ask for attribution? I haven't checked.
Nope, I do not ask for attribution for the bos code. In all honesty the code is soo fundamentally simple that I do not feel any ownership of it because it is in no way a challenge to write. I am still debuging all my bos code though. I want to be sure it is ready with no bugs and some light documentation and fully worthy of CC release before I release it as a sepperate package from Gundam RTS.
Prior to all of this I did state that 1.0's .bos code files are up for anyone's use without attribution. However, being that spring is getting more and more heated about this licenses stuff thanks to the somewhat recent spat over gpl I am trying to do a more professional content release. Gundam is still property of bandai. However, my scripts, textures, art, etc are mine to share as I see fit.
That is why I put in the Gundam License that it is a single package that may not be dissassembled. That means nothing can be taken out of the Gundam RTS package any more. However, I do recoginize that certain parts may be needed for someone's project and if a script is needed you know I will give that .bos script away after I check it for any possible issues.
does that help? I am not good at all this legal speak.
Prior to all of this I did state that 1.0's .bos code files are up for anyone's use without attribution. However, being that spring is getting more and more heated about this licenses stuff thanks to the somewhat recent spat over gpl I am trying to do a more professional content release. Gundam is still property of bandai. However, my scripts, textures, art, etc are mine to share as I see fit.
That is why I put in the Gundam License that it is a single package that may not be dissassembled. That means nothing can be taken out of the Gundam RTS package any more. However, I do recoginize that certain parts may be needed for someone's project and if a script is needed you know I will give that .bos script away after I check it for any possible issues.
does that help? I am not good at all this legal speak.
It is a problem - whether or not fan-art can be "licensed" is an issue. It's a legal mess - you said you'd some ambiguous "permission" form Bandai... but it's impossible to really properly "license" any content that's bandai-related. A lot of people do (for example, GLTron is fully GPL'd) but it's dubious how legal that is. Probably what you're already doing is best - CC your units that are your own.smoth wrote:Nope, I do not ask for attribution for the bos code. In all honesty the code is soo fundamentally simple that I do not feel any ownership of it because it is in no way a challenge to write. I am still debuging all my bos code though. I want to be sure it is ready with no bugs and some light documentation and fully worthy of CC release before I release it as a sepperate package from Gundam RTS.
Prior to all of this I did state that 1.0's .bos code files are up for anyone's use without attribution. However, being that spring is getting more and more heated about this licenses stuff thanks to the somewhat recent spat over gpl I am trying to do a more professional content release. Gundam is still property of bandai. However, my scripts, textures, art, etc are mine to share as I see fit.
That is why I put in the Gundam License that it is a single package that may not be dissassembled. That means nothing can be taken out of the Gundam RTS package any more. However, I do recoginize that certain parts may be needed for someone's project and if a script is needed you know I will give that .bos script away after I check it for any possible issues.
does that help? I am not good at all this legal speak.
The only other thing I'd do is tack a BSD/MIT license into the top of each of your open BOS scripts. BSD/MIT license means "do whatever you want, just don't sue me" - and as such, they can be incorporated into any other project (including GPL).
The thing that I get confused by the GPL is how it applies to non-code content (like textures, etc)... which is necessary to consider, given the confusing desire of Debian to be "GPL-only" - what is the license of the icons, etc. within Debian?
I never said I have permission to do the mod but then again I always state that gundam's names, designs etc are Bandais and not mine. However, I am only saying that I claim rights to my work. Bandai may own Gundam but they do not own any part of my work. It is my work but I do not try to claim any rights to Bandai's Gundam copyrights, just that the work in this mod is mine.
Of course I only ask people to license things they own the rights to.smoth wrote:The reason I offered to CC parts of the mod is that certain parts do belong to me and not bandai.
If you think that you actually don't have a right to create a mod with "Gundam" content (I wouldn't know, there's a lot of national/international law, trademarks, company fan licensing etc. that could apply), I'd definitely advise you to seek to get explicit permission. I already saw too much fan made content (including dozens of mods) disappear from the internet because of cease and desist letters. It's really painful for everyone when that happens.
As for CC, perhaps there lies an advantage for someone (including you) in the fact that people already have read it, and that even a kid should understand the simplified summary it provides. However, I'm pretty confident that the exact license makes little difference for Gentoo and related projects...
Yeah, Bandai has never in the history of the internet shut down a gundam mod. I have read from several interviews that they are looking for a better way to promote gundam in the US. I want to get the mod a little further along before I show it to Bandai, I wanted to present them with something that was more complete.
When the mod reaches 2.0 I fully intend on showing it to bandai because that is the version that will have all units UV mapped and much of the scripts in a way that I can feel pleased with them. I am hoping that the mod will be able to help them draw in gundam fans(while still being fun for non-gundam fans). In a way it is over glorfied fan art.
When the mod reaches 2.0 I fully intend on showing it to bandai because that is the version that will have all units UV mapped and much of the scripts in a way that I can feel pleased with them. I am hoping that the mod will be able to help them draw in gundam fans(while still being fun for non-gundam fans). In a way it is over glorfied fan art.
CC is "weaker" than GPL and if they wanted they could take the CC content and distribute it as GPL. I don't think Debian objects to the BSD license, there may have been a misunderstanding what CC license was used (some CC variants are more restrictive than others, I think Argh used the public domain version).tombom wrote:I'm pretty sure they're just a strict GPL distribution.Tobi wrote:I have no clue, I have just been told so by the debian games team... (see the bug report I linked to). I'd have expected CC to be ok too, but apparently it isn't.
BTW, my policy is that you can create derivative works as long as you properly credit everyone involved (that especially means making clear that your version is your version and not mine so each fork is identifiable). I have no idea which license states that and for incomplete projects I probably didn't even include the credits myself (I know there's no credits section in the Dozerz readme, for example), mostly because I keep procrastinating it...
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Tobi wrote:...
No, the scripts are GPL and the sounds/models are CC. This makes it unsuitable for inclusion in debian (see debian bug 367883). (But, debian is by far the most strict free linux distribution I think, so I'd be happy already if spring gets in). ...
Cyril Brulebois, in debian bug 367883, wrote:As a debian-games team member, I'm going to take care of this one.
...
As discussed on IRC, GPL is OK but CC isn't, for main. We're aiming at a
`bare' engine packages with instructions about how to install mods.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
CC is a weaker license, but I'm fairly sure that doesn't mean you can just wrap it into a greater license. CC is still a step up from public domain, as I recall it requires you to credit the author of the original work. Public domain AFAIK is the only license that can be seamlessly wrapped, as long as you don't try to assume ownership of the content from the original source that PD'ed it you can use it however you want.KDR_11k wrote:Yes but why isn't CC acceptable for main? You could just relicense it as GPL without even needing to ask Argh since the GPL allows wrapping "weaker" licenses in it.
Actually all of the current Creative Commons licenses are "attribution" at the moment, the variants without mandatory crediting were hardly being used.
The variation (if I remember correctly) is between "share alike" (similiar to GPL), "non commercial" , share alike and non commercial, and none of those (all with attribution required as well).
edit: I forgot that there is also non derivative, and some other combos. Just go here for an overview: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
The variation (if I remember correctly) is between "share alike" (similiar to GPL), "non commercial" , share alike and non commercial, and none of those (all with attribution required as well).
edit: I forgot that there is also non derivative, and some other combos. Just go here for an overview: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Last edited by SeanHeron on 12 Jan 2007, 17:12, edited 1 time in total.
Already been done. I can't find the link, but there is a variant of the BSD license that allows for attribution.hawkki wrote:Would it be too difficult to creat a license used in this community, that basically and simply states "content absolutely free for use, but credits for used work must be given" ?
edit: found the attribution assurance license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php
Either way, attribution is unpopular because it is incompatible with the GPL.
Probably the most likely approach is to have multiple releases, one for each license you'd like to release it under (if you don't care about attribution).
Release one version under the GPL - this puts your non-code-content in the ambiguous land of "non-GPL non-code"... consensus being that it's "free for redistribution, no attribution, but all packages that include it must be entirely GPL'd". Still, that's by consensus, not by the legal verbiage within.
Then release a second version with the more permissive licenses you prefer (GPL'd or attribution licensed code, CC'd content with attribution, whatever).
Having a fully GPL'd release is critical if you want your mod included in opensource distros - with a fully GPL version, you can get it into the Debian repository.
Still, being in the Debian repository is unnecessary, since people can download that off the internet, since unlike C++ apps you don't NEED to be in the repository for things to work nicely.