Spring RTS Engine

Hi all artwork, model and content producers, I would let you know a common pitfall regarding Non Commercial clause of Creative Commons.

You probably would like that your best work is distributed to as many people as possible and that all the people looking at your work will know that it was made by you.

This is not so easy if you use NC clause in Creative Commons.

I would like to ask you to use a DFSG compatible license (either CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY 3.0 for example) for licensing artworks, because if you choose the CC-BY-NC (Non commercial) flavour, this is considered, in Free Software terms, as Non Free.

This is not only a matter for Debian (or derivatives, like Ubuntu), which is a thing you could be only slightly interested, but it is against also the "OpenSource" definition (point 6) and will prevent for example, your work or the so beautiful game that includes your work to be distributed on a Magazine, on a Free Game CD and so on.

It could be for sure downloaded from the internet (not from a "free-software" only repository) and given by hand from friend to friend, by probably this is not enough for you and for us.

If you do not want to let businness people to just take your artwork and close it up, simple use CC-BY-SA (3.0), this will prevent use of your artwork in a commercial game withouth giving back to the community the modifications the commercial team made to them.

Or double license it as CC-BY-NC, and CC-BY-SA in order to ease distribution and modification. You can also add a "phone me for commercial licensing" if you want, but please add a Free (as in Speech) license to your work.

The judgement that 'Free' as in 'Free-Speech' must also mean 'Free-to-sell' and never 'Free' as in 'not-paid-for' is a ridiculous Randist pile of wank.

Suggesting SA is 'free' when it essentially suffers the same viral problems as GPL is a nonsense.

In short, S44 is CC-BY-NC and is staying that way forever and ever amen. Debian can shove it, as can anyone with the agenda of making the Open Source model more business friendly.

FLOZi wrote:In short, S44 is CC-BY-NC and is staying that way forever and ever amen. Debian can shove it, as can anyone with the agenda of making the Open Source model more business friendly.

Debian doesn't accept CC-BY-NC

mammadori wrote:... and will prevent for example, your work or the so beautiful game that includes your work to be distributed on a Magazine, on a Free Game CD and so on.

Your arguments are good but that's stretching it. Magazines don't care if a work can be modified, all they need is permission to distribute and they'll usually ask before doing so if the license is unclear.

Based on your post I've decided to relicense my artwork from CC BY-NC-SA to CC-BY-SA simply because you reminded me that most commercial users won't want to include artwork that can be further re-used. I offer "alternate licensing" by request for commercial users which pretty much covers all bases.

jK wrote:

FLOZi wrote:In short, S44 is CC-BY-NC and is staying that way forever and ever amen. Debian can shove it, as can anyone with the agenda of making the Open Source model more business friendly.

Debian doesn't accept CC-BY-NC

Which is why I said Debian can shove it.

FLOZi's absolutely right- CC-BY-NC is not GPL-compliant, S'44 is very deliberately licensed, and this matter should be closed.

Sir, if you wish to redistribute a given title, please contact the project team directly. Do not antagonize our content makers; they're generally quite aware of the legal consequences of their licenses.

Well, to be perfectly honest I don't really keep up with much of the legalese of this kind of thing, so I'm not entirely sure what all these acronyms mean, but I use non-commercial because I don't particularly care for other people making money off of *my* work.

I don't mind if people use my stuff for their projects, in fact I would encourage it. But if I'm not making any money, why should they? If they want to use it for a commercial project they can ask permission and compensation can be arranged -- then everybody is happy: business gets inexpensive art, I get money.

Perhaps I should have a little note to inform prospective commercial projects that they can contact me for re-licensing? I thought that was kind of assumed.

Edit: I read the other thread, and it appears you mentioned this for Debian packages, not businesses. In that case the share-alike might be better. But as I said before, I'm not very up to par with these sort of things; I'll have a look at them when I can.

mammadori: cool story bro, have fun.

mammadori, Be aware that licensing is a very touchy subject around here. You've made your point about as well as can be made but don't get suckered into passionate arguments over it. Each to their own basically.

maackey wrote:Edit: I read the other thread, and it appears you mentioned this for Debian packages, not businesses. In that case the share-alike might be better. But as I said before, I'm not very up to par with these sort of things; I'll have a look at them when I can.

Yes I mean exactly that, CC-BY-SA-3.0, if the most GPL like out of the available CC licenses and by licensing with that you both do not care about evil people who makes money but do not gives back to the community and also care about good guys that just want to distribute your artwork in free software projects.

SpliFF wrote:Based on your post I've decided to relicense my artwork from CC BY-NC-SA to CC-BY-SA simply because you reminded me that most commercial users won't want to include artwork that can be further re-used. I offer "alternate licensing" by request for commercial users which pretty much covers all bases.

You understood my points perfectly, many thanks for your interest!

This will ease repackaging and distributing it.

bro tip CC is completely incompatible with gpl...

please take your license pushing elsewhere.

SpliFF wrote:mammadori, Be aware that licensing is a very touchy subject around here. You've made your point about as well as can be made but don't get suckered into passionate arguments over it. Each to their own basically.

You are right, I wrote this post because I once though that NC was cool, then I understood why it isn't (in my "ubuntu", as in the african word, POV ) and why only CC-BY-SA and CC-BY have "Approved for cultural Works" stickers on them on their webpage.

Anyway, all artists are free to do whatever they want, my point is just to tell people to reconsider their lincensing keeping in mind that maybe they wanted Share Alike instead of Non Commercial, since Non Commercial could hurts non business (like Free Software distributions) in an unspected way.

Feel free to make art and license it under those terms but don't try to push it on others especially when you aren't making anything yourself because then you'll be seen as a leecher.

KDR_11k wrote:Feel free to make art and license it under those terms but don't try to push it on others especially when you aren't making anything yourself because then you'll be seen as a leecher.

Just some 2 last points hoping not being misunderstood again:

1. I'm not pushing anything, just explaining some possible misconceptions I had in the past about CC licensing and Free Software. Since I'm not pushing I did not replied to Spring1944's Author since he already knows exactly what he wants and I'm perfectly fine with that.

My points are not politicals, just technicals: choose whatever licence you feel is better for your work, but please consider that if your original licensing choice of "non commercial" was really what you had in mind or if you could be fine with "Share Alike" or multiple licensing; this was what my first post said. Not pushing at all.

2. I'm not leeching, just trying to package some spring maps and mods for Debian in order to give more linux users an easy access to this wonderful and not-diffused-as-it-should-be (IMHO) Spring gaming world.

If you (re)license your work also with a Open Source license it could end on Debian (and like) CD/DVDs and on Magazines too without problems, otherwise it surely cannot go on Debian CD/DVD and needs more work for a Magazine to publish/distribute your work.

Thats all, many thanks for your attention and patience.

we have heard all of this before. The community wasn't formed yesterday.