[8bpp] Graphics Replacement Project - OpenGFX License

[Zephyris]

This is a thread for the various artists and coders from the OpenGFX project to give information on what license they would like their work released under. For the time being please DO NOT post here unless you have contributed sprites or coding to the project and are giving your vote on the license.

There are 4 major options:

Release to public domain.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes

GNU Public License.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes, on the condition of attribution
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes, on the condition of attribution
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes, except commercial*

*this could be amended/extended to allow commercial usage where the profits go towards the support of OpenTTD and its community.

What to do...
Please post indicating which licenses you would be happy with remember that:
The work you have done is your work, it is your choice.
The only aim of OpenGFX is a set of graphics which can be freely used with OpenTTD, at no point was use with other projects promoted or prohibited.
OpenGFX doesn't have to have the same license as OpenTTD, it just has to be distributable with OpenTTD.
*edit* As pointed out below, remember "The GPL was meant for code, not art".

Please indicate how happy with each license individually so we can make as many people as possible as happy as possible, make sure you indicate your preferred if you have a particular preference. Put your vote in quote tags just to make it obvious.

And my vote:

Public license - Unhappy
GPL - Not happy (preferably not)
CC byA - Happy
CC NC byA - Very happy (preferred choice)

Commercial use by OpenTTD - Very happy

[FooBar]

Although I haven't contributed much graphics (merely the stations, the statue and the fountain), I did spend quite some time on putting the final grf-format together, so I think I should have a say in this

My Vote:

CC BY-NC-SA: absolutely!
CC BY-NC-SA with commercial exception to benefit the OpenTTD project: absolutely!
CC BY-SA: I prefer one of the above, but I could live with this.
GPL: rather not.
Public domain: definitely not

Which ends up to be exactly the same as Zephyris' vote

[Raumkraut]

PD: Releasing to Public Domain can be problematic in some regions, where certain copy-rights can not be given up or transferred. In Germany, for example, an artist's moral rights are inalienable (this is the reason why a German fan-made WH40K movie never saw the light of day). I believe that this is one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why the Creative Commons project was started.

GPL: The GPL was meant for code, not art. This is plain to see in the wording of the license, if you actually read it (get lots of caffeine, it's a long 'un!). Inappropriate and contextually ambiguous (what is a work of art's "source code", for example?) wording in a license only serves to make money for lawyers. Do you really want that? DO YOU?
Granted, there is some "coding" involved in creating the GRFs, but I suspect the amount of creativity needed for the coding of this project (ie. just replacing graphics) is not really sufficient to qualify for notable copyright protection separate from the art itself. (Disclaimer: I've only done a little GRF coding)

Modified CC: I would suggest that you NOT go modifying any licenses unless you're a copyright lawyer. Unless the CC people are totally insane, the CC licenses have been carefully crafted to stand up in court without needing a great amount of debate. Again; ambiguity introduced by non-lawyerspeak == more money for lawyers.

So, in summary:

Public Domain: No; legally dubious
GPL: Okay, though legally questionable
CC BY-SA: Sure.
CC BY-NC-SA: Only if unmodified.

But then what do I know, I've only contributed the signals...

[Purno]

This is a thread for the various artists and coders from the OpenGFX project to give information on what license they would like their work released under. For the time being please DO NOT post here unless you have contributed sprites or coding to the project and are giving your vote on the license.

I believe you used a few of my graphics, so that legalizes me to reply":

Release to public domain.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes

If that includes commercial use: NO WAI.

GNU Public License.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes

If that includes commercial use: NO WAI.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes, on the condition of attribution
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes

If that includes commercial use: NO WAI.
What is attribution?

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes, on the condition of attribution
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes, except commercial*

Sounds like the best option, though what is attribution?

Please indicate how happy with each license individually so we can make as many people as possible as happy as possible, make sure you indicate your preferred if you have a particular preference. Put your vote in quote tags just to make it obvious.

I don't want commercial use. I can live with OpenTTD getting an income from it, as long as OpenTTD is non-profit.
And I'd like credit for my work, can we enforce that in a lincense?

[Zephyris]

Or in short, purno says:

Public license - No
GPL - No
CC byA - No
CC NC byA - Yes

Commercial use by OpenTTD - OK

"Attribution" refers to credit to the original authors and any additional info, for example if the graphics are distributed with a readme with a list of authors and a link to the TT forums and OpenTTD then the list of authors and the links must be preserved in any derivative works.

[Purno]

Commercial use by OpenTTD only as long as OpenTTD is non-profit. (which means, IMO, the income is only meant to cover the expenses).

[peter1138]

GPL - Not happy (preferably not)

Very true, I have, from the start, stated that my graphics can be used under GPL, CC or similar licences.

Please make up your mind.

And of course, in the previous post to yours quoted, I wrote...

License should be agreed before doing anything, else you'll have to go back and find all the artists who dropped out to agree later, or face redrawing artwork.

[mph]

Again- I only contributed the lighthouse - but I think I would be in agreement with the others-

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes, on the condition of attribution
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes, except commercial*

[LordAzamath]

The first thing I say about this matter (Yes, I've avoided it on purpose , cos I don't want to get into that hassle):
Someone said just to donate this to OpenTTD -> it would get the same licence that OpenTTD has eg. GNU/GPL (OpenTTD still IS that, yes?).
About commercial usage, who on earth would want to sell these things? Nowadays the commercial games don't use 8bpp graphics . Only some free games do it. So My opinion is GPL. We are still nice people, if someone wants to make an open project about it, least we can do is not to care about it. When I started the project, I thought that it'd be kinda 'official' thing for OpenTTD, didn't fall out like that, but still I can't see any possibility why we shouldn't just release it under GPL. It cannot be redistributed (also sold) without being under GPL then, also they have to have the sources (nfo that is, or artwork, well.. What game would do with these graphics.)

The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. 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.

So if we think that a grf is just a lib for OpenTTD/TTDPatch, then with GPL (not lGPL), it can only be used in free programs.. I cannot see why is this bad. I didn't start the project to be with a proprietary licence. Although my words don't count so much because I haven't contributed so much, I'd like you guys to think about my opinion..
GPL

And if there is a fool who pays for the graphics then as they said.. 'Fools need their money to be taken away before they do anything stupid with it.'
And if there indeed is a program which is using our (not mine or Zephyris' or FooBars or anyones elses ) work, then it will still be something OpenTTD like because I can't think of a need for some train tracks in some racing game . Then OpenTTD would still be better and the other project would fail + they can't say they are the authors + the project actually has to be free.

At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using [a GPLed library name here].

And the more free projects here are, the better

Madis

[DeletedUser21]

Again- I only contributed the lighthouse - but I think I would be in agreement with the others-

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike.
Free to distribute? Yes
Free to be modified? Yes, on the condition of attribution
Free to be used for any purpose? Yes, except commercial*

Seconded for the transmitter.

[DeletedUser5]

Well, I think that license should be same as OpenTTD's license, so GNU GPL, but then I have nothing against using CC NC byA. Although I'd like to see it licensed under GNU GPL as the game is.

[orudge]

I would also strongly recommend that the graphics be licenced under the GPL, along with OpenTTD itself. Those worrying about potential "commercial use" of their graphics should note that the GPL does not allow somebody to come along, take a copy of OpenTTD, and sell it without offering the source code to whatever modifications they make. This means that if anybody does sell OpenTTD (which is quite legal), they do have to make their modifications available - and people will always be able to download the official graphics, and the game itself, for free, from the OpenTTD web site. Anyway, in practice, I don't think I've ever come across any sites selling OpenTTD. OpenTTD is and always will be free, and it would be best for the project if the graphics were using the same licence.

I'd say Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike would be alright as a backup licence if need be, but I do think that it is best to keep everything licenced under the GPL. This does not reduce the author's rights, but it does mean people have more freedom to do what they want with the project, which generally benefits everybody.

[Raumkraut]

We are still nice people, if someone wants to make an open project about it, least we can do is not to care about it.

There are more FLOSS licenses than just the GPL. I guess BSD, MPL, CDDL, etc. aren't your cup of tea. Is that a reason though, to deny other FLOSS developers use of such fine works of art?

It cannot be redistributed (also sold) without being under GPL then, also they have to have the sources (nfo that is, or artwork, well.. What game would do with these graphics.)

I would argue that the "sources" for the graphics would be the .xcf, .psd, .blend, or .whathaveyou files used to create those graphics. If reasonable people disagree about something so fundamental to the licensing terms, such that it may have to be decided in court, perhaps the license isn't so suitable..?

So if we think that a grf is just a lib for OpenTTD/TTDPatch, then with GPL (not lGPL), it can only be used in free programs.. I cannot see why is this bad.

No, it would only be able to be used with GPL programs. Not everything FLOSS is GPL.
If you really want it to be usable by as much FLOSS as possible, you should probably use a more liberal license - a sharealike CC one, for example.

Although my words don't count so much because I haven't contributed so much, I'd like you guys to think about my opinion..

IMO, in a discussion about licensing terms, knowing something about licensing is more useful than being a proficiently prolific pixel pusher!

[Red*Star]

To make it short:

Public license - By no means
GPL - Not preferred, but would be ok
CC byA - Ok
CC NC byA - Preferred

[Zephyris]

Just for peoples interest, and to calm any fears:
I am not "against" GPL, I would just prefer another license. If there is sufficient interest in releasing the sprites as GPL then I will be happy to. However I am strongly of the opinion that graphics may be more flexibly used or sold than code, so a different license would be more appropriate. You can't print code on a t-shirt and sell it! There is no reason why the OpenTTD installer can't bundle items which are not GPL but with another license which allows free distribution...

[orudge]

As long as it's agreed on by all parties, it is possible to dual-licence things. So the OpenGFX could be released as GPL and as some sort of reasonably compatible CC licence, I believe. There may be cause for doing such a thing, although it's probably preferable not to.

[LordAzamath]

No, it would only be able to be used with GPL programs. Not everything FLOSS is GPL.

You are right that it's not my cup of tea, but to think realistically, who would want to make a program with these graphics? What open and free game would want these graphics?
And if they indeed wanted it, they could just ask us. It's not that we go to court anyway even if someone uses it in a commercial product imo.

About sources, tbh, I think thatif I did create it via pixel by pixel or code it byte by byte (which is mostly true), what would e the source then? IMO if the source (nfo and pcx) are so easily extractable, then we *could* provide the nfo of final document + the pcx of final document and it'd be it. No need for all the sprites, because the pcx Is one big sprite if you get waht I mean

And yes, I'm not familiar with the licences so much, but logic tells me that we don't need to worry about someone selling/getting profit from our work. Paranoia isn't a good thing

[Raumkraut]

1. I've modified by choices to be softer toward the GPL (I'm pretty much with Zeph on this one)

2. Dual licensing will mean even more problems, as you'll have to get everyone to agree to both licenses!

3. Version 3 of the CC-BY-SA and CC-SA licenses appear to be acceptable for getting into Debian's repositories.

4. In the original post, what is "byA" supposed to mean, Zeph?

[Zephyris]

By attribution.

There are other creative commons licenses where you do not have to give attribution to the original authors.

[Raumkraut]

By attribution.

AFAIK there is no "By attribution" clause. There's an attribution clause, whose symbol is "BY" though.
Since you mention SA earlier in the post, but not in your votey-bit, I had assumed you meant to put "BY-SA", but the middle bit got cut out somehow during editing.