[8bpp] Graphics Replacement Project - OpenGFX License

[dihedral]

i am still impressed that you guys think anybody would be interested in using your sprites commercially

How the #$%^ many times must I say this? Selling OpenTTD merchandise with OpenGFX content counts as commercial use.

I'd call you denser than gold, but you'd probably take it as a compliment.

with "commercial use" i mean OTHER than "profit" for the OpenTTD project!
(as i had the impression the authors of OpenGFX were not against OpenTTD making a profit using their work, but other people/companies profiting from their work)

that thought never struck your mind has it?

[LordAzamath]

Now personally, I'd prefer to be able to use the .xcf files I have for my graphics.

XCF isn't source, it's progress. PCX is direct source.. I sometimes prefer modifying pcx directly.. And this discussion really doesn't lead anywhere if you just try to get your word to be the last not actually suggesting a solution for some things you've stated..
I think that pcx is preferred way of modificating it, because I can directly encode it again.. Not save as some other format.. And that doesn't count what program I use for it.. It's like running a css file through a css optimiser (although pcx is not optimal for room, it's optimal as in speed of encoding/decoding, because you don't have to resave it with another extension)

You do agree that If I make some code thing or whatever in a certain editor, which has it's native format too, which gives more opportunities to save, but then give the code away, it doesn't have to be in format of my editor, but in format of 'the most suitable for the task'

I would suggest that the .pcx file is often just an intermediary form, outputted from a "compiler" (eg. Photoshop), from a machine-readable source (eg. a .psd file).

No, pcx is the final file before encoding.. the psd or xcf are just filetypes for pre-processing.. If I made a lua script with a notepad which can save in txt format, and then resave it with luaEditor to *.lua, do you really think that I should give the txt variant?

And tbh, none of us would sue anyone (maybe only you, to keep your word the last.)

[richk67]

However, your comments on showing provenance are well placed IMO. Though that may be just because they support my case for supplying more than just .pcx files as "source code".

Err... nope. Sorry, I disagree with you there, and I wouldnt use what I said to support it either. The only question about the .grf is "what source files do I need to produce this .grf?". The answer to that is just the .pcx and the .nfo. I sincerely doubt that it even requires a commented .nfo; just a compilable one.

I strongly do not think that an artist has to retain the original sketches to have copyright; merely that in a digital age, having them available to support your claim to originality is of benefit. eg. It is not a requirement of say the GPL that the entire history of a work is distributed with it. If so, then the whole 14000+ revision repository of OTTD would have to be distributed; and that is impractical and not required. The fact that much of it is available is a credit to OpenTTD, not a requirement of its license (only official distributed builds require the source availability).

My understanding of "source" for these .grfs would be their *direct* construction files; ie. the one .pcx, and the one .nfo. Retaining the rest is useful to you, but not required by any of the licenses, IMO.

[FooBar]

...things...

Could you pretty please shut up? I'm trying to find some sort of solution, and you're not quite helping right now.

Whatever I was trying to say is that PCX+NFO would qualify as "source" more than another format.


IMO, a "machine readable source" is something that you can run through a program or machine which results in the final product without further user interference during the process.

[michael blunck]

My understanding of "source" for these .grfs would be their *direct* construction files; ie. the one .pcx, and the one .nfo. Retaining the rest is useful to you, but not required by any of the licenses, IMO.

OTOH, because .pcx/.nfo and .grf are isomorph, I don´t think either .pcx nor .nfo would qualifiy as "source". Source being something which can´t be derived from a final (software) product, isn´t it?

regards
Michael

[FooBar]

Not nescesarily I think. What would be the source of a PHP script, where the source and executable script are one and the same?

[Raumkraut]

I thought about this some, while I was making my dinner, and came to a realisation about the apparent source of our misunderstanding.
It has been quite accurately argued that the .pcx and .nfo files are the legitimate "source" of GRF files. I do not contend this.

What has seemingly fallen by the wayside, while the GRF has been argued, is the fact that we need to license the graphics, as well as the GRF files.
I would suspect that most people who have contributed to the OpenGFX project have not, and likely will not, have any direct input into the creation of the GRFs. What affects such contributors, and the only works their license vote here could affect, is the license for the graphics they have drawn (or will draw).

From the point of view of the artist, I would argue that a GRF file is a compilation of the individual graphics, in a manner defined by an appropriate .nfo file. Much as a book of photographs can be a compilation of the photos, laid out (perhaps with commentary, etc.) in a manner determined by the book's author. In both cases, the author of the compilation is able to use and distribute the artworks in any form allowed by the license/s of those artworks. The author would retain copyright on the form of the compilation.

Hence, if you distribute a GRF under the GPL, I agree that the sources would be the .nfo and the graphics. As has been clearly pointed out by others, to compile GRFs the "preferred" source format for the graphics is PCX. I agree with this.
However, since distributing the GRF also means distributing the graphics, we would also be subject to the GPL in relation to the original graphics. Hence we would need to also supply the "source" - files in the "preferred" editing format - or be in breach of the graphics' licensing conditions.

The only point now in contention on this subject then, to me, is what counts as the "source" for the graphics files?

I hope that's cleared up what I was trying to say, and where I was coming from.
Please do point out any inaccuracies or mistakes I've made in my thought processes.

[andythenorth]

This has been an interesting thread. I have several comments to make.

First, a little background: I am a contributor to the Industrial Stations Renewal (ISR) grf, which is released under GPL. For that reason I have recently read the GPL and the accompanying FAQS, and I have asked several people I trust about appropriate ways to undertake open source licensing.

I also run a commercial software company which releases both open source and closed source software. I also run a film company and have been involved in distributing content and trying to make money off merchandise such as t-shirts. As part of my work, I have dealt with numerous client contracts and have some practical opinions on the realities of prosecuting people for breach of copyright.

Comments:

1. Declaration of interest: this licensing debate is taking up a lot of Zephyris' time. Personally I'd much rather he was coding the Heavy Equipment set I'm drawing However getting licensing right is important: a lot of people's time and effort has been put into these graphics.

2. Format of 'source files' for licenses that require source to be available: pcx is fine. This question came up with ISR, and has been answered. The artefact that the 'source' must be available for is the assembled grf. To assemble the grf, one requires an nfo file and a pcx file. Therefore pcx is both necessary and sufficient for the graphics 'source'. Please ignore any further debate about photoshop files etc. Such files are simply not required.

3. Please be pragmatic. It is very unlikely that anyone will make much money by exploiting graphics. It is very difficult to make money from things like t-shirts. There is a very strict economic analysis of the situation that can be applied: none of us draw these graphics for money, and no-one will pay us to, therefore none of us loses if someone does figure out how to make a few dollars from those graphics. However most of us are not very strict economists when it comes to things we're emotionally involved in - and it's not unusual that we would feel cheated - it's a symptom of the very common loss aversion fallacy. My advice: don't get hung up on 'money' for work you gave freely.

4. Please be pragmatic. It's extremely unlikely that any of you will pay a lawyer to pursue any action to enforce any license, so do not waste too much emotion on this question.

5. Please be pragmatic. OpenGFX has been a very successful collaborative (unpaid) project. Many such projects are derailed or die because of issues about intellectual property and licensing. People fall out, people feel aggrieved, the project dies, people get bitter and leave the community. Please don't let that happen. Robust debate is good, but there are some completely unhelpful contributions to this thread.

cheers,

Andy

[FooBar]

I hope that's cleared up what I was trying to say

Thanks for clearing up. Glad you had dinner, otherwise you wouldn't have another thinking about this

The "preferred editing format" depends on what one wants to accomplish. If I want to change a few pixels in the graphics for use ingame, I pretty much prefer NFO+PCX as source, because editing the PCX and encoding it with the NFO would suffice.

If one wants to use the graphics as base for some complete new drawings, the whole process of drawing the final sprites is more interesting as "preferred editing format".

Now I start thinking that we should only license the final GRF files and not the seperate graphics per se.



And now that Andy has posted in the meantime I was typing up this message...

Now I start thinking that we should only license the final GRF files and not the seperate graphics per se.

Yes, now I definitely think that.

Thanks for your reply, Andy. I think you've really shed some light on the subject and hopefully some people will see that light now, the same light I gradually have come to see in the past few days.

[DaleStan]

This passage from the GPL might be important:

...complete corresponding machine-readable source code...

IMO, a source code is machine readable if a compiler of some sort (grfcodec) can interpret the files in order to compile it into the final format (a grf file).

I would suggest that the .pcx file is often just an intermediary form, outputted from a "compiler" (eg. Photoshop), from a machine-readable source (eg. a .psd file).

Indeed. Under FooBar's definition, the compiler-generated object files would qualify as the source of OpenTTD. This is definitely not to the spirit of the GPL, and for that document, the spirit and the letter have a remarkable tendency to be the same.

Now I start thinking that we should only license the final GRF files and not the seperate graphics per se.

And you definitely can't do that under the GPL. GPL requires source, a GRF file alone is definitely not its source.

[Zephyris]

Wow that's a lot of posts!

From all this, and to keep things really simple, the devs seem uncomfortable with anything other than GPL. Fair enough, it is their game, and I (along with the other artists) want the graphics to be distributed with the game to let more people around the world enjoy it freely. To release under the GPL the same will be done for OpenGFX as has been done for openttdw.grf - the source will be taken as the .pcx and .nfo (with no "coding" in the nfo, just offsets, this is definitely the preferred form for editing the grf) with a copy of the GPL and a readme including credits. I shall be getting in touch with all the artists to confirm release under the GPL, and try persuade the 2 people (OMG, end of the world) who are uncomfortable with the GPL that this is an error of judgement.

I would like to think that this has been a pseudo-democratic judgement, pleasing those who think OpenGFX needs a rigorously defined and discussed license, pleasing the artists and coders who have made the project possible, and pleasing the devs who are heroes for working on such an awesome game.

[Ammler]

You artists can still also publish your working files, if you think they are helpful for the futur, you just don't have to. Isn't that nice?

They might also be helpful as "HowTos" maybe. (with their own license whatever...)

Greets
Ammler

[Sacro]

the source will be taken as the .pcx and .nfo

What if it was created using Blender and then rendered. Shouldn't they also provide the .blend file? Is that not the preferred editing format?

[richk67]

What if it was created using Blender and then rendered. Shouldn't they also provide the .blend file? Is that not the preferred editing format?

Created using Blender, and then rendered into.... tada!! ... a .pcx file, which is the source for the .grf. The Blend files would be interesting background info for a future artist, but not *required* by the GPL.

[DaleStan]

If a PCX file generated from something that is not distributed is acceptable as the source code, then why is OpenTTD distributing a bunch of C and C++ code, instead of the object files that are generated from that source?

[LordAzamath]

You are just trolling now
As Foobar said, we are licencing the grf not graphics.. So we need to provide the sources for the grfs not the PCXs. Although the inside of pcx file would still be (c)
EDIT: FFS I hate mind-typos

[DaleStan]

As Foobar said, we are licencing the grf not graphics

The graphics are an integral part of the GRF. If the GRF is GPL, then so are the graphics.

So we need to provide the sources for the grfs not the nfos.

What are the "sources of the nfos", and what do they have to do with the topic?

Although the inside of pcx file would still be (c)

ITYM "copyleft"; see above.

[LordAzamath]

sources of pcx-es.. Ehh.. It was 4AM when I wrote that post.

[FooBar]

Let's get this clear now...

So if we release the grf files, we have to include the source, which are the NFO and the PCX files. So far everybody agrees (hopefully).
Now because we include the PCX files, we also have to include the source of those (being a second order source), but then we should also include the source of the source of the pcx file (which could be generated textures used in the source of the pcx files). Now if one has written a script for a graphics program to generate those scripts, one should also include that script. And the source of that script.

And the source of the NFO files: I manually copied real sprites from a bunch of smaller nfo files into a bunch of larger nfo files. Should we then also include the smaller NFO files? Of which some contain bugs and do not even work with the current OpenTTD? And what's the source of those NFO files? (If the PCX's require a second order source, NFO's do so as well).


Let's all make a backup of our source files, forget where that is stored, accidentally destroy the original source files, release OpenGFX with PCX+NFO as source only and rediscover the backup a few months after that.

[athanasios]

Damn it. Zephyris release OpenGFX as you like and let us stop this madness.
PCX source? Regarding my sprites, I 've deleted almost all of it!