FreeGameDev

Hello, I am a developer of the game Xye. It is a game that looks like this:
http://tinypic.com/r/vijmrp/7

It is clear that art is its one of its main weaknesses, so a couple of years ago my brother started a project to make an alternative skin that is more detailed. We are close to be able to release it:
http://tinypic.com/r/a9l45s/7

The thing is that we have to think of a good license for it. It was a lot of work and we wouldn't want the art to be used by a proprietary game, so I would like to know if a license that forbade the use of the art in proprietary software would exist and be considered a Free license. Would the GPL work like this? There is an issue with the GPL and it is the concept of source, all that we plan to release is the final skin. During development my brother may have used several things like Illustrator and photoshop but most of that itermediate work is probably lost or hard to find, so all that we have is really the final sprites in a single .xcf file that is easily modified but it is not really the vector source :/.

Licenses that ban commercial usage are generally not considered Free.

The most obvious one for that is the Create Commons with the No Commercial clause:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

The problem with the NC clause is that it can be detrimental to the distribution of your game e.g. can't include Xye on a game magazine cover CD, or distribute Xye as part of a Linux distribution.

Proprietary does not mean commercial. The GPL actively bans proprietary use but permits commercial use as long as the license is kept.

I am fine with commercial use if it is in a project that is free software.

So, basically I am looking for a license that forbids use in proprietary software a-la-GPL but is not fixated on source because it is art and the whole source thing doesn't make much sense for the sprites.

CC-by-SA then.

Well, the source is the preferred form for modification. In that case, a sprite would be both the "source" and "binary"

One problem with CC-BY-SA (and the GPL, when it comes to art) is that it's really not clear what the licence restrictions apply to - what constitutes a derivative work?

For example, it's clear that any modification of the art itself counts, so someone couldn't take your art and put it under an incompatible license. At the other extreme, it's entirely legal to include CC-BY-SA art on the same medium as art with different licences (i.e., collective works) - if I sell a CD with lots of different art, or host a website using various art, the CC-BY-SA doesn't impose a requirement on everything else of the CD or website. But if an executable loads an image, is the executable counted as a derivative work?

If it is counted as a derivative work, then an unintended consequence would be that CC-BY-SA art couldn't be used in say BSD (and possibly GPL) games, because you're not applying the same or similar licence to the entire work.

In practice, I suspect you'd be okay - people wanting to use something in proprietary works would probably steer clear of using someone else's CC-BY-SA just in case. But it is unfortunately an unclear area.

Yes, that is why I would rather consider the CC-by-SA an equivalent to the LGPL... however if you make a movie for example with a piece of artwork that is CC-by-SA, the entire movie has to be CC-by-SA then. So in the end it is somehow in between the GPL and LGPL as it depends on the type of work (for some types it is possible to argue along the mere aggregation clause... but so it is the case for the GPL :-/ ).

But it is pretty pointless to argue about these licensing issues. I would say in 99% of the cases the intend is clear and everyone is happy... and of the 1% where it isn't, in 99% it isn't worth pursuing any legal action.

The definition of derived work is pretty well explained in the license terms, I don't think it is confusing and I honestly don't believe a full team of layers and reviewers would make such a simple mistake

Considering the example you mentioned about an executable loading an image, if there is change to the image whatsoever it isn't a derived work, if there is any change then it is a derived work. It's the same as the example stated in the license text about the synchronization of sound within a movie. Naturally, it will be hard to use an image without changing anything in it, media comes in various formats (either file type, sprites, background sizes, models that need rendering, sound samples that need to be converted, etc) that makes the use of the media without falling into the derived works state very hard.

But that's why there are compatible licenses, I can release my software in BSD and in CC-BY-SA without problems, the same can't be said to the combination of GPL and CC-BY-SA due to the SA clause, but there are several other possibilities. I think it's important for anyone that releases art to be conscious and mindful of the license implications but I also believe that it's the responsibility of those using the work to see if their licenses are compatible.

So in the end, choose the license you think will better suite the way you feel about your work being used by others and let those others deal with the license problems :-), and if someday someone asks that you change the license, you are the author so you can do that and accommodate for any problems that arise.

Knitter {l Wrote}:The definition of derived work is pretty well explained in the license terms, I don't think it is confusing and I honestly don't believe a full team of layers and reviewers would make such a simple mistake

Which bit are you looking at? I see the definition at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- ... /legalcode , 1c, though it isn't clear to me how that applies to use of art in games. As for mistakes, well I don't think there's any mistakes, just that this is an unclear areas. Licences do sometimes have problems - that's why we get newer versions sometimes. If there's a consensus answer to this, then great - but I've yet to hear anyone actually give me what the answer is to this

Considering the example you mentioned about an executable loading an image, if there is change to the image whatsoever it isn't a derived work, if there is any change then it is a derived work. It's the same as the example stated in the license text about the synchronization of sound within a movie. Naturally, it will be hard to use an image without changing anything in it, media comes in various formats (either file type, sprites, background sizes, models that need rendering, sound samples that need to be converted, etc) that makes the use of the media without falling into the derived works state very hard.

I'm not asking whether the image (modified or not) is a derivative work, I'm asking whether the exe is a derivative work. And it doesn't matter whether you modify an image or not - an unmodified image still has to be distributed under CC-BY-SA (or similar), but that still leaves unanswered whether the licence applies restrictions to the other components of the game too?

But that's why there are compatible licenses, I can release my software in BSD and in CC-BY-SA without problems, the same can't be said to the combination of GPL and CC-BY-SA due to the SA clause, but there are several other possibilities.

It's always possible to release under any multiple licences, because that means people choose which to use. "Compatibility" usually refers to whether you can relicense one as another. So you can't take GPL code and relicense as BSD (nor can you relicense as closed source). You can't take CC-BY-SA art and relicense as BSD (or a non-free licence). But can you have a game that loads a CC-BY-SA image, where the game exe and code is released as BSD (or, as the OP was asking, under a proprietary licence)?

And it doesn't matter whether you modify an image or not - an unmodified image still has to be distributed under CC-BY-SA (or similar), but that still leaves unanswered whether the licence applies restrictions to the other components of the game too?

Off course it matters, if I don't change the image then it's not a derivate work and therefor all the clauses that would apply to derivate works don't. This means that I need to distribute the image in CC-BY-SA but the all work is not under that license.

Consider a simple example, I often use icons under CC-BY-SA for software that I release under other licenses, the all work is not a derived work. I need to comply with CC-BY-SA and provide the images in that license but it doesn't affect the rest of the software since I did not modify the icons. Now, if I do modify the icons I need to release those modifications under CC-BY-SA and depending on how it is modified it may affect the rest of my work.

It's always possible to release under any multiple licences, because that means people choose which to use. "Compatibility" usually refers to whether you can relicense one as another. So you can't take GPL code and relicense as BSD (nor can you relicense as closed source). You can't take CC-BY-SA art and relicense as BSD (or a non-free licence). But can you have a game that loads a CC-BY-SA image, where the game exe and code is released as BSD (or, as the OP was asking, under a proprietary licence)?

Actually, compatibility refers to the action of mixing licenses in the same work. If two licenses are compatible it means I can combine work from license A with work from license B and release as either A or B.

Answer the questions, yes you can have a game under BSD that loads an image under CC-BY-SA without major problems, you need to comply with both licenses terms but as long as you do you don't have problems. That isn't to say that any other license combination would work.

Knitter {l Wrote}:Off course it matters, if I don't change the image then it's not a derivate work and therefor all the clauses that would apply to derivate works don't.

Which clauses apply only to derivative works, but not to an unmodified version?

This means that I need to distribute the image in CC-BY-SA but the all work is not under that license.

Consider a simple example, I often use icons under CC-BY-SA for software that I release under other licenses, the all work is not a derived work. I need to comply with CC-BY-SA and provide the images in that license but it doesn't affect the rest of the software since I did not modify the icons. Now, if I do modify the icons I need to release those modifications under CC-BY-SA and depending on how it is modified it may affect the rest of my work.

Consider these cases:

1. Someone uses unmodified CC-BY-SA Image A to load in their exe B released under say a proprietary licence. So we agree that A still has to be distributed under CC-BY-SA or similar, but it doesn't affect the license for B.

2. Someone uses modified CC-BY-SA Image A', a derived work of A, to load in their exe B. We agree that A' would still have to be distributed under CC-BY-SA or similar. But are you saying that the act of modifying A now means the licence applies to B as well? You may be right, but I've just not come across this idea before...

Either way, I think we agree that CC-BY-SA doesn't strictly prevent use in a proprietary game (even if they have to do it with an unmodified version of the image). I'm just saying that it wouldn't prevent use even if they modified the image - so long as they still distributed the modified image (but not the exe) under the same licence.

Answer the questions, yes you can have a game under BSD that loads an image under CC-BY-SA without major problems, you need to comply with both licenses terms but as long as you do you don't have problems. That isn't to say that any other license combination would work.

But what if there was any modification made to the image, where the modified image was still supplied under CC-BY-SA?

mdwh {l Wrote}:2. Someone uses modified CC-BY-SA Image A', a derived work of A, to load in their exe B. We agree that A' would still have to be distributed under CC-BY-SA or similar. But are you saying that the act of modifying A now means the licence applies to B as well? You may be right, but I've just not come across this idea before...

CC-BY-SA is not LGPL, whether or not you modify a BY-SA work has no influence on what the license applies to, except those things that you directly "connect" to the BY-SA work while modifying it (so that both together form a derivative work).
They way LGPL and similar licenses work is that they actually force you to distribute everything linked to it under the same license (or the GPL, for this example), but they let you "ignore" that condition as long as you don't modify the original work. CC-BY-SA works differently.

I hope someone can actually understand that :P

sireus {l Wrote}:They way LGPL and similar licenses work is that they actually force you to distribute everything linked to it under the same license (or the GPL, for this example), but they let you "ignore" that condition as long as you don't modify the original work. CC-BY-SA works differently.

Hmm if that is true I will retract my statement that the CC-by-SA is similar to the LGPL. So far my impression was that the LGPL is simply limiting its copyleft to itself without "infecting" other works.

To lazy to look it up myself right now... you have a link to the part of the license etc that would support what you mentioned?

sireus {l Wrote}:They way LGPL and similar licenses work is that they actually force you to distribute everything linked to it under the same license (or the GPL, for this example), but they let you "ignore" that condition as long as you don't modify the original work. CC-BY-SA works differently.

You're completely wrong about the LGPL.

From "Why you shouldn't use the LGPL" on the GNU website:

The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs.

The LGPL allows your code to be used in - linked to by - another program. It maintains copyleft on itself - so as long as you don't embed LGPL code directly in to your own, it does not apply itself to your code. This is in contrast to the infectious GPL which, if linked to, applies itself to your code.

So I can download the source to your LGPL project, and put it in my project's source tree, and as long as I'm not copy/pasting your code into mine (i.e. deriving my code from yours), there's no limitation on the license I can use. If I change any of it, I'm bound by the license to release those modifications.

Please only try to come across as an authority on topics that you genuinely as-a-fact know is-a-fact. Misinformation like this can be detrimental to community harmony/understanding. It's why we got so pissed off with that troll MyEmail.

It can be as simple as saying, "My understanding..." or "In my opinion..." which makes this a discussion instead of making outright claims with language like, "The way [they] work is..."

Actually, if I remember correctly, the LGPL used to be referred to as the Library GNU Public License because it was written with libraries in mind, before Stallman et al became a little more resolute in their insistence on software freedom.

...so they renamed it from "library" to "lesser" and *they* discuraged its use for libraries...
...one ring to bind them...ahm, back to topic:

I agree with Knitter that the CC-BY-SA is rather clear about derivates and collections thus clear about what isn't a collection nor a derivate of a work - ie. just using the work among other works.

Their examples of derivates are equal to what I understand "derivate" from natural language use. A derivate is something that is mainly "based" on something else - where based is not the same as "using". Maybe "using" to an essential extend may count as "based".

A game isn't a derivate work nor a collection of textures or models it uses - it may be based on a idea or universe - so it may be a derivate of a book or another game or a movie. A derivate work extends (or cripples) the original work. And even though a game may be a derivate of one thing it can't be a derivate of all the used art.

A general hint: RTFL (derived from RTFM), don't derive your understandings from third party interpretations.

The worth of any legal agreement is only decided on a case to case basis in court.

Indeed, you're right. I must have been mislead by something along these lines

Wikipedia: LGPL {l Wrote}:The non-(L)GPLed program can then be distributed under any terms if it is not a derivative work. If it is a derivative work, then the program's terms must allow for "modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." Whether a work that uses an LGPL program is a derivative work or not is a legal issue.

charlie {l Wrote}:It can be as simple as saying, "My understanding..." or "In my opinion..." which makes this a discussion instead of making outright claims with language like, "The way [they] work is..."

Well, in that case we have a quite fundamental misunderstanding here. Obviously, everything I say is "from my understanding", "in my opinion" and "to the best of my knowledge". There are hardly any things I could claim to know for a fact.
Oh, and this ;)
And finally, something else: I don't really have any problem with answering questions even if I'm not an expert on the topic. Again, this is the internet. If someone needs reliable information, they should contact (and pay) an expert (in this case, a lawyer). If you see that differently, feel free to delete my post(s).

Well, new question, if the art is made GPL , I am guessing it would be all right to keep the game with any other free software license even if it is not GPL. Do you know of a precedent for this?

vexorian {l Wrote}:Well, new question, if the art is made GPL , I am guessing it would be all right to keep the game with any other free software license even if it is not GPL. Do you know of a precedent for this?

No it wouldn't, it would only be right to use other licenses that are compatible with the version of GPL you are using. Some combinations are legally impossible to have since the licenses have differente terms and conditions that collide with one another.

Licenses that are not compatible with GNU GPL are, for example: original (4 clause) BSD, Affero General Public License, Apache (all versions are incompatible with GNU GPL v2), the MPL and some combinations of Creative Commons. There are several more and the FSF provides a list of approved and compatible licenses that you can look at.

GNU GPL is for software, it may become confusing to release art using it. There are a several icons packages that are GNU LGPL to allow usage by GNU GPL software and software that is not GNU GPL compatible, but most art should use a license that was created for art like or one of the CC combinations.

It's the same as releasing software under a CC license, they were created for art and are confusing to read when trying to apply to software.