ok after lots of thought, license poll

[Alltaken]

ok guys, basicly i have thought about this lots and have posted previous topics on this issue.

this is for the new GFX engines GFX.

the thing is graphics need to be able to be distributed with OTTD (which is GPL)

but i would personally like some protection for my work, or any work from my GFX source files. and would not like to see it turning up around the internet, or in other software.

GPL allows for things to be sold for profit, meaning if your 3d files were GPLed it could be sold by anyone to anyone for any amount of money, as long as they meet a few basic requirements.

hence i came up with the idea of GFX being GPL and files being CC-non commercial.

the thing about creative commons (non-commercial) is you can still give away any rights you like as the copyright holder without breaking the CC agreement. (meaning you can have security on your 3d files, and donate your GFX files to GPL for distribution with OTTD, also you can allow all other OTTD artists to publish derivatives of your work under the GPL for OTTD)

basicly CC and GPL are both open source, but they differ in their allowed distribution methods. CC-non-commercial means people cannot profit from the file (they also cannot accept compensation for distribution), but it would still be available publicly for others to edit.

these two options can co-exist within the OTTD community. i can write the license agreements for both of the situations and let the artist choose either (depending how liberal they feel with their work)

i am gathering info as to what others feel they would prefer.

this is for "sprite files" and "3d graphics files" specifically. (but future artists, and wannabe artists can answer too)

thanks everyone


Alltaken

[ThorRune]

Would CC non-commercial mean your 3d-files could not be used with other free projects without your permission? If so, IMO, it breaks the whole point with Open-Source.

[charlieg]

Would CC non-commercial mean your 3d-files could not be used with other free projects without your permission? If so, IMO, it breaks the whole point with Open-Source.

Not at all. The CC non-commercial gives permission for people to use the content as long as it is a non-commerical venture.

I would go one step further and use the CC attribution non-comerical. It is probably worth pointing out that the CC non-commerical license (the one Alltaken seems to suggest) is a 1.0 version and no longer encouraged. The CC attribution non-commercial is a 2.0 version of the CC licenses.

[ThorRune]

The CC Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 seems all good to me. When it comes to simplicity... Well, in short terms...

Everything BUT the GFX can be used for anything, including ommercial use. The GFX can be used for any non-comemrcial use as long as the author is credited.

Right? If so, i'm kinda wondering why 50% voted no. I do suspect people thinking 'Well simple is better'... Many people vote before they really know

[StavrosG]

I voted for the dual licence. Its better, probably

[Alltaken]

i was not actually saying i would use the non-commercial only license. (sorry for my poor wording)

i was just mentioning that it would have the non commercial attribute to it. the actual license would be this one

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Everything BUT the GFX can be used for anything, including ommercial use. The GFX can be used for any non-comemrcial use as long as the author is credited.

Ummmmmm actually the opposite.

ONLY the GFX can be used for commercial use.

the 3d files (i.e. the source files, the .Blend files (or whatever file you used) are under the CC, and can be shared but cannot be distributed for any profit.

this means that OTTD the game is not restricted by anything. however you as the creator of the 3d files, are retaining the right to stop any infringment of your license.

if someone trys to sell your sourcefiles for any purpose you do not like. i.e. on turbosquid (a 3d model archive where people sell and buy 3d models), you would have 100% rights to shut anyone down selling your stuff. and would have legal rights to get any money they earnt off it.

however OTTD being distributed with the GFX files (i.e. the ones that run inside the game, and work in no other game) for money is fine, and people can do it.

you give up a few of your rights (the same rights coders give up by writing code for ottd), but you retain your most important rights.

does that make sense?

Alltaken

[ThorRune]

Well, if you replace th word 'GFX' with '3d source', my short one is right, right?

Everything BUT the 3D source can be used for anything, including ommercial use. The 3D source can be used for any non-comemrcial use as long as the author is credited, and the license is retained.

[Alltaken]

Well, if you replace th word 'GFX' with '3d source', my short one is right, right?

Everything BUT the 3D source can be used for anything, including ommercial use. The 3D source can be used for any non-comemrcial use as long as the author is credited, and the license is retained.

yes that is correct.

Alltaken

[jixor]

What about BSD style.

"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met..."

attribution
endorsement
+non-commercial

ok i havent really looked into the cc option i'm just making random suggestions.

[Alltaken]

BSD is even worse than GPL. sorry but no way is that happening

CC is designed directly for artworks, i.e. music, images, movies.
GPL is what OTTD uses now, and using GPL would make distribution compatible without question

Alltaken

[armi]

I have voted for the dual license, but i must make this comment...

I agree that your work should be protected, but if you decide sometime in the future that you dont want OpenTTD to use your graphic files anymore, thus deciding to remove them? That could easly be a very big setback on the project... Just a thought...

Regards,
armi

[ThorRune]

If he gives permition, i fould not think he could take it back? Anyways, peopåle here is big-minded enough not to even consider that.

[StavrosG]

I have voted for the dual license, but i must make this comment...

I agree that your work should be protected, but if you decide sometime in the future that you dont want OpenTTD to use your graphic files anymore, thus deciding to remove them? That could easly be a very big setback on the project... Just a thought...

Regards,
armi

The restricting licence will be for the gfx source only.
The graphics that will ship with OpenTTD will be under GPL, so completely free (as in free speech, of course )

[armi]

The restricting licence will be for the gfx source only.
The graphics that will ship with OpenTTD will be under GPL, so completely free (as in free speech, of course )

Got it... i was making confusion with the graphics itself, not the source of the engine .

[Alltaken]

I agree that your work should be protected, but if you decide sometime in the future that you dont want OpenTTD to use your graphic files anymore

Yeah i am trying to balance the needs of the artist and the needs of the community.

TTD Patch has had a few issues with artists (since there is no open source policy at all) where people have been using work from other artists. and copyright infringments are occuring. this offends the artists, and has made things harder for the community at the same time.

The goal of a OTTD gfx license that is defined and considered, is that artists will be more likely to be relaxed about their work than if there were no set licenses in place.

A well balanced policy would mean this:
Artists would be more likely to release source 3d files to the community.
Artists would be more likely to allow GFX to be distributed with the game.
Artists are allowed to use others previous work (with credit) making their time easier.
Artists all know what the license agrees to and are more likely to be at ease about it. (even if their are things that are either to relaxed, or to loose about it. since its understood there is less fear about it)

these reasons can only result in better off community.

if it were under the GPL, i.e. all of the stuff. then i would expect more people to be releasing private graphics sets. which IMO would be less benificial for the community.

Alltaken

[DaleStan]

GPL allows for things to be sold for profit, meaning if your 3d files were GPLed it could be sold by anyone to anyone for any amount of money, as long as they meet a few basic requirements.

Those "few basic requirements" including: the 3d file must be included or, at no more than cost-of-distribution, offered "on a medium customarily used for software interchange" to anyone who recieves a rendered version; that you must be properly credited; and that these same rights (including the right to redistrbute, the right to receive the source, and the right to create derivative works) and responsibilities must be passed on to all recipients of the GPLed source, or its render.

[in the TTD Patch community,] copyright infringments are occuring.

CITE!! Cite or retract.

if it were under the GPL, i.e. all of the stuff. then i would expect more people to be releasing private graphics sets.

You seem to have something against the GPL. What don't you like about it? Except for the legal holes in the BY clause (see below) it's identical to the CC's BY-SA, with the additional requirement that any compiled version of the source or any derivitave of the source must be accompanied by the source that produced said compiled version.

If you're worried about legal holes in the GPL, you should be MORE worried about the PUBLISHED, and apparently ignored, legal holes in the BY clause of all CC licenses.
The CC licenses are apparently not free software licenses[0]. The NC and ND licenses have the obvious non-comercial/no-derivs restrictions; neither of which is permissible for free software, and the BY clause also apparently has major legal problems.

As usual, IANAL, but I fail to understand how source licensed under a CC license with any of the NC, ND, or SA clauses can possibly be used to produce GPLed output. For the NC licenses, the GPL does not apply the NC restriction, so this would be removing a restriction without the permission of the copyright owner. For the ND and SA licenses, the rendered versions would be derivitave works, and would be either prohibited (ND) or required to be released under the same CC license (SA).

I say apply the GPL to the graphics "source" (the blender files) and avoid all these problems.

@armi: Permissions granted by a release under the GPL CANNOT be revoked. The copyright holder retains all rights, regardless of the release license, so any future version may be released under any license(s) and any current and previous versions may be released under any number of licenses. Under no circumstances may you say "Even if you observe all the requirements of the GPL, you may not exercise all your rights under the GPL."

[0] Apologies; I thought I'd found one on a more reputable site.

[Alltaken]

at no more than cost-of-distribution

" the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it"
quote from gnu.org

CITE!! Cite or retract.

http://tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=5939

this is the one i remember. i have hardly ever come to this forum and have very rarely been to the patch forum, so i doubt its the only one that has been around.

my understanding is that much of the patch sprites are specifically unable to be used by others for their projects. (unless requested prior....)

apparently not free software licenses

yes i have read this page and am familiar with it (i have read many 10's of pages on the issues)

i have probably put about 40+ hours into the license issue so far.

"....software released solely under the license..." (refering to CC)

the above quote IMO means that you can dual license somthing and avoid these issues.

For the NC licenses, the GPL does not apply the NC restriction, so this would be removing a restriction without the permission of the copyright owner. For the ND and SA licenses, the rendered versions would be derivitave works, and would be either prohibited (ND) or required to be released under the same CC license (SA).

i have thought about this, and this one is easy also.

As a copyright owner (of a work) i have full rights, under the CC to do whatever i wish to do with my work. i can release it under the CC and sell it myself later, i can sell it to anyone i want. i could release it under the GPL (even if i have it released under the CC already)

the CC doesn't stop me at all.

so the original creater can happily sign away enough rights to allow derivative works (exclusivly renders (of a certain scale/format if they want to be sure)) to be GPLed. and could allow this right to people further down the line.

if someone gets their file and wants it for another purpose, then they can contact the artist and the artist has full rights to do whatever they want. i.e. give it to them, sell it to them....

Section 4a of the license states, in part,

If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.

Per DFSG 3, any licensor should be allowed to make and distribute modified versions of a work. The above clause allows a licensor to prohibit modified versions that mention them or reference them.

The above is another supposed problem with the CC. (which i have an argument for.)

as an artist i refuse to have my name put to anything that i think is crap. and by request i would like to know any future release (under the control of the releaser) could have may name removed. it is not much to ask. (especially in a situation like this)

it does not give me the right to stop the release of the modified file, it mearly allows me to have my name removed.

What don't you like about it?

he fact that you can legally sell distribution of source files. source files in the 3d and graphics world are highly valuable. with a simple object being sellable for hundred of dollars. and compex ones being sellable for thousands of dollars. (yes i have seen it)

i have repetidly stated this.

my first intention was to release it under the GPL, i was warned against it and through resreach realised how little the GPL actually protected artists.

I say apply the GPL to the graphics "source" (the blender files) and avoid all these problems.

i am inclined to offer two easy options for artists.

full GPL (many artists are happy to release it under GPL, and are not precious about their work)
Dual license (for those who want to release it under the most relaxed license available that still protects us as artists)

----
the only question that bugs me is the GPL. it never once mentions image source code, or what that would be. and it clearly defines that anything under the GPL must have the license applied backwards to include the source it came from.

if i publish the source under the CC, and then try to publish the graphics under the GPL, then which takes legal priority? does the GPL's clause stating it effects the source code take effect, or can the GFX simply not be dual licensec with the CC and GPL?

if not then this is gonna get messier. why must software specific license be imposed on inappropriate situations (like art) or vice verse. it seems to me that a one size fits all license is stupid.

i have not yet found any project that has any specific license for GFX (open source project this is)

most just distribute the GFX, without any consideration to licenses, nor any consideration to source files.

i find it funny that you more problem by trying to be closer to the GPL rules than others who are releasing under the GPL. than you do if you have no licnse, and don't share your GFX source files at all.

really screwed up IMO. and it highlights the inability of licenses to be flexible to situations.

i am trying to set it up correctly from the start, to avoid as many problems as possible in the future. if things are fixed now before its a problem then its all good.

Alltaken

[trucido]

the fact that you can legally sell distribution of source files. source files in the 3d and graphics world are highly valuable. with a simple object being sellable for hundred of dollars. and compex ones being sellable for thousands of dollars. (yes i have seen it)

Don't take this as being offensive, more of a rhetorical question. But what make graphics more important than source code(in this case for example the openttd source code)? As program source code can be sold for hundred or into the hundreds of thousands of dollars as well, so source code in the programming world is just as valuable as art source code(blender files, what have you).

Just figured I'd throw that out there.

[pasky]

This is probably a stupid question, but as long as the GFX files are GPL'd, what's the point of placing any requirements on the licence of the 3D sources?

[DaleStan]

at no more than cost-of-distribution

" the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it"
quote from gnu.org

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Sure, you can charge whatever you want for distributing the source (provided no executable is involved), but why would anyone be willing to pay? Unless the distributor of a modified version has not given anyone the source, (or the right to receive it, by providing a binary) there is someone else who has the source and has every right to give it out for free.

http://tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=5939

I ask for a copyright infringement cite and he points me to something that happened more than a year ago?
I wasn't here then, so I can't speak to what may or may not have happened, but it appears that the infringing material was removed from the forums and not used in any set. The infringement was pointed out and rectified.

"....software released solely under the license..." (refering to CC)

the above quote IMO means that you can dual license somthing and avoid these issues.

So you dual license it with ... what licenses? the CC BY-NC and the GPL? Because they are not compatible, you cannot require compliance with both licenses, so I can take your work, modify it, and release that under whatever license I choose, including public domain (no copyright[0]) or I can take it under the GPL, and sell any derivative versions for whatever price I fell is appropriate, provided I include an offer to provide the blender files at no more than cost-of-distribution. Using the BY-NC-SA license will remove the first of these "problems", but not the second.

If you release it Dual-license, you are giving even more rights away, because I can take it under whichever license happens to suit me.

Section 4a of the license states, in part,

If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.
<snip>
In addition, Section 4b of the license requires that the author's name, copyright notices, and some other information be included in derivative works, "if supplied".

The above is another supposed problem with the CC. (which i have an argument for.)

as an artist i refuse to have my name put to anything that i think is crap. and by request i would like to know any future release (under the control of the releaser) could have may name removed. it is not much to ask. (especially in a situation like this)

it does not give me the right to stop the release of the modified file, it mearly allows me to have my name removed.

I hope you don't mind I adjusted the quote from the debian-legal page slightly.
I belive you missed their next arguement: By releasing anything under a CC licenses with a BY clause you:
1) retain the right to not be mentioned in any derivative work
2) require that you be credited in all derivative works
How are these two compatible?

What don't you like about [the GPL]?

he fact that you can legally sell distribution of source files. source files in the 3d and graphics world are highly valuable. with a simple object being sellable for hundred of dollars. and compex ones being sellable for thousands of dollars. (yes i have seen it)

Again, why would ANYONE pay for a blender file that is available at cost-of-distribution or cost-of-download somewhere else? And if said blender file isn't available then either (1) it has never been released, or (2) someone is in violation of the GPL.
Worst case senario: you buy a copy and then exercise your rights under the GPL to distribute it for free.

the only question that bugs me is the GPL. it never once mentions image source code, or what that would be.

And the CC licenses improve on this how?

[the GPL] clearly defines that anything under the GPL must have the license applied backwards to include the source it came from.

Not true. The GPL is applied to the source; it effects any derivitave works, be they new version of the source or binaries.


You seem to be under the impression that the GPL cannot be applied to non-source stuff. I could apply the GPL to *this* *post*, and it would work.

This is probably a stupid question, but as long as the GFX files are GPL'd, what's the point of placing any requirements on the licence of the 3D sources?

Because Alltaken wants the 3D sources to be distributed, but he doesn't want anyone making any money from them.

The GPL makes it very difficult to make money from distribution; if you sell me something GPLed, then I am paying for either: 1) your bandwidth (the privelege of not having to download it) or 2) your computer time (the privelege of not having to compile/render/whatever) it.