Unfinished graphics sets

[andythenorth]

So never assume licences mean anything to people.

No need to assume. Licenses do mean something to some people.

I agree that licenses do nothing to stop some people stealing other people's work. So eh. Nor is anyone going to court over pixels for an open-source game.

But lack of licenses, or breaking of license terms also cause:

(1) community drama which is unpleasant and has to be sorted out and can cause people to stop contributing their work.
(2) service disruption due to copyright-holders filing DMCA takedown notices against the services by which content is distributed.

[Eddi]

Sadly the openttd manager for bananas seems to require one.

The reason for that is really simple: without license, the BaNaNaS server cannot send the file to ANYONE. EVER. so please, do the community a favour and pick a license. you only have to do this once in your life, and from that day on stick that license on everything you post. Preferably a license that you actually understand the meaning of. it really does not matter much which license. just A license.

[Redirect Left]

Sadly the openttd manager for bananas seems to require one.

The reason for that is really simple: without license, the BaNaNaS server cannot send the file to ANYONE. EVER. so please, do the community a favour and pick a license. you only have to do this once in your life, and from that day on stick that license on everything you post. Preferably a license that you actually understand the meaning of. it really does not matter much which license. just A license.

I may just not make any GRFs then. Simpler . I don't see why I have to choose a licence really, considering i don't really agree with the whole concept of licences. just put a .txt in the output file saying "Author doesn't care, do what you want, make a nuke out of it. Do something cool!".

[Eddi]

just put a .txt in the output file saying "Author doesn't care, do what you want, make a nuke out of it. Do something cool!".

no matter what you think about licenses, that right there is a perfectly valid license. by all means, go ahead and do that.

like i said, anything is better than nothing.

Edit: a license that might interest you: Beerware

[Redirect Left]

just put a .txt in the output file saying "Author doesn't care, do what you want, make a nuke out of it. Do something cool!".

no matter what you think about licenses, that right there is a perfectly valid license. by all means, go ahead and do that.

Oh. I thought you needed to have 1,500 clauses and ifs to make it court worthy. In the offchance someone really was that upset about pixels. Fair enough then

[andythenorth]

As above, just use the WTFPL http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/

[Sylf]

WTFPL

That's funny and all, but it sounds like releasing a work in public domain. Yup.

[kamnet]

When I release things, I don't even state any licence. Sadly the openttd manager for bananas seems to require one. I just picked a random one that seemed used by others for the single thing i've put on there so far. Honestly couldn't give a single toss what happens to my work, else I wouldn't release it to begin with.

If you pick a "random license", then it binds you to the terms just as it does anybody else. If you don't know what those terms are, that can be bad news for you if some jackhole really wanted ot press the issue.

I am with you on the fact that I don't care what happens to my work or who uses it for what. That is why I explicitly place all of my work in the Public Domain. You don't need a fancy license to do that, but for the sake of being nicer than just saying "Here, take it!" While I may prefer to use that, some people don't find that to be clear enough, so Creative Commons created "CC0", where you expressly disclaim all rights to the work. Either of these are fine for Bananas, and can be applied under the "Custom" license.

https://creativecommons.org/about/pdm
https://creativecommons.org/about/cc0

[Alberth]

If you pick a "random license", then it binds you to the terms just as it does anybody else. If you don't know what those terms are, that can be bad news for you if some jackhole really wanted ot press the issue.

Not true, the author has the right to re-license his work.
The new license gets added as an alternative to the already existing license(s), and a user can pick any of the licenses, but only one (ie not use some part from one license, and some other part of a different license).

Edit: Euhm, I am wrong here. Said ass-hole may still pick the 'wrong license, and push you into areas where you don't want to be. So yeah, you're right, it's much better to know what you're signing

I am with you on the fact that I don't care what happens to my work or who uses it for what. That is why I explicitly place all of my work in the Public Domain.

Some countries do not recognize "public domain", which is why WTPL and CC0 exist. They are legally valid versions of 'public domain', especially in those countries.

[kamnet]

If you pick a "random license", then it binds you to the terms just as it does anybody else. If you don't know what those terms are, that can be bad news for you if some jackhole really wanted ot press the issue.

Not true, the author has the right to re-license his work.
The new license gets added as an alternative to the already existing license(s), and a user can pick any of the licenses, but only one (ie not use some part from one license, and some other part of a different license). Edit: Euhm, I am wrong here. Said ass-hole may still pick the 'wrong license, and push you into areas where you don't want to be. So yeah, you're right, it's much better to know what you're signing

Yes, the author can re-license the work, but the author cannot revoke the previous license for the work that was released under it. You may not remember, but several years ago Michael Blunk ran into this exact issue where he raised an infringement claim against an person who used one of his sprites, only to find out that on one occasion he had put it under a license that allowed it to be reused and redistributed. He's never repeated that mistake again, but that particular copy of his sprites are forever out of his control now, so long as whoever receives them abides by the license Michael bundled them with.

[Eddi]

Yes, the author can re-license the work, but the author cannot revoke the previous license for the work that was released under it.

well, here we get technical again, which is probably the reason why so many people hate the topic of licenses.

according to german copyright law, you have the right to revoke a license, if you feel that your past work conflicts with your current political views, or similar. but this must be a global revocation from all modes of publishing, you cannot just revoke the license from individual people. and also, once you start to distribute that work again, you have to offer the license back to the people that once had it.

the only other ways to revoke a license is if either the original license had an exit clause (e.g. required a renewal every X years), or if the other party violated terms of the license.

[Erato]

I found a promising one, that was unforunately discontinued long ago, back in the NFO era..
21-8-2006 The Toyland Renewal Set!! - DanMacK
Would love to see this one finished.

[Doorslammer]

Here's one of my own that could do with a fair update. Colours too, as they got a refurb since the primary colour days.

TWM

[Leanden]

Here's one of my own that could do with a fair update. Colours too, as they got a refurb since the primary colour days.

TWM

I could include these in BRTrains if you wanted

[Doorslammer]

Sounds neat to me

[Leanden]

Sounds neat to me

Send me the spritesheets with a list of liveries and any other info you have and i'll put them in

[Doorslammer]

Ah. I lost everything pretty much a couple of years back. Backup drive crash.

I only have whatever is in the thread as information.