FreeGameDev

Hello.

I'm mejiko.
I'm Trisquel GNU/Linux user. and I'm not a lawer.

Supertuxkart included CC-BY-SA and GPL content.
But GPL and CC-BY-SA is incompatible license. (License Conflict)

This problem is affected gameplay, making gameplay video and making screenshot.
but I think that distribute this game is not problematic. (Reason: content and code is separeted.)

Is this is legal problematic ?

If this is problematic, I suggests that resolve license incomapatible. (remove or replace content, contact content author, etc)

thanks.

I'm sorry, I forgot posting reference URI.

CC-BY-SA vs GPL

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/GPL_compatibility_use_cases
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/01/msg00022.html
http://supertuxkart.sourceforge.net/Licensing#Combinations

License Text

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

CC and GPL FAQ

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#When_is_my_use_considered_an_adaptation.3F

If it was, wouldn't you agree Debian would throw us out? Anyway this is a very common license situation and I really don't see why you can't read up on that yourself instead of assuming the worst and having us find the relevant links for you.

Short answer : GPL covers our code, CC-BY-SA covers our data. Data and code do not need to have the same license since GPL covers only executables and libraries, so no problem here

Well, I respect the STK Team's license choices. I'm not going to argue about that.

But I have to do an objection towards the argument of the utility of GPL regarding art assets. The thing with GPL applied to art is that it allows maintenance. It allows corrections/improvements to be made without waiting for the author to do so. I know that because I create and edit content for a fully GPL game, though how well that works also has to do with the contributor's skills.

NeonKnightOA {l Wrote}:Well, I respect the STK Team's license choices. I'm not going to argue about that.

But I have to do an objection towards the argument of the utility of GPL regarding art assets. The thing with GPL applied to art is that it allows maintenance. It allows corrections/improvements to be made without waiting for the author to do so. I know that because I create and edit content for a fully GPL game, though how well that works also has to do with the contributor's skills.

I'm not sure I follow you, CC-BY-SA also allows that

Auria {l Wrote}:

NeonKnightOA {l Wrote}:Well, I respect the STK Team's license choices. I'm not going to argue about that.

But I have to do an objection towards the argument of the utility of GPL regarding art assets. The thing with GPL applied to art is that it allows maintenance. It allows corrections/improvements to be made without waiting for the author to do so. I know that because I create and edit content for a fully GPL game, though how well that works also has to do with the contributor's skills.

I'm not sure I follow you, CC-BY-SA also allows that

Not at all. IANAL but as far as I know, CC-BY has restrictions on distribution and CC-SA has restrictions on software derivations. Two of GPL's four freedoms are to be able to create derivated software and to redistribute the derivated software.

NeonKnightOA {l Wrote}:

Auria {l Wrote}:

NeonKnightOA {l Wrote}:Well, I respect the STK Team's license choices. I'm not going to argue about that.

But I have to do an objection towards the argument of the utility of GPL regarding art assets. The thing with GPL applied to art is that it allows maintenance. It allows corrections/improvements to be made without waiting for the author to do so. I know that because I create and edit content for a fully GPL game, though how well that works also has to do with the contributor's skills.

I'm not sure I follow you, CC-BY-SA also allows that

Not at all. IANAL but as far as I know, CC-BY has restrictions on distribution and CC-SA has restrictions on software derivations. Two of GPL's four freedoms are to be able to create derivated software and to redistribute the derivated software.

You must be misunderstanding that. CC-BY-SA allows you to create derivated content and to redistribute the content (like the GPL) subject to certain terms (like the GPL). None of those terms prevents you from maintaining the content.

If it did, Wikipedia would be a gigantic CC-BY-SA violation.

Yeah you must be thinking of the NC (not commercial) and ND (no derivatives) clauses which sets additional restrictions, but we are not using those as that would be counterproductive (especially the ND clause).

Just to add: The only problem with the CC-by(-SA) is basically that it doesn't require the "source" to be made available like the GPL. For art assets that would be for example the original image file with all layers un-merged or for 3D assets the .blend etc. Not having these can make maintenance and improvements very difficult.
I still think it is better to license content under the CC-by-SA etc. than go all GPL, but one should make sure that the artists are also sharing those source files if possible.