[8bpp] Graphics Replacement Project - OpenGFX License

[DaleStan]

Oh, so you think it's a good idea to write your own license.

Quick quiz: What permission(s) is/are granted by the GPL that is/are not granted by "permission is granted to modify and distribute this work"?

[FooBar]

Unless someone is a lawyer, I don't think it's wise to write our own license, or modify one. I'm sure anyone could write something that looks like a license, but none is able to test if it's watertight.

As a fellow artist, I suggest accepting the minor disadvantage of allowing commercial redistribution and choosing between GPL and CC BY-SA. You can read my analysis of those in one of my previous posts.
While these licenses allow for commercial redistribution, they also force the redistributed (or modified and redistributed) work to be released under the very same license. This means if one starts selling our work, someone who bought it can then distribute it freely. Thus making the practise of selling GPL'ed or CC BY-SA'ed work not very profitable.

Now GPL and CC BY-SA are very similar. The biggest difference is the attribution clause. While this is very specific in CC BY-SA, it's only one small line in GPL.

[dihedral]

i am still impressed that you guys think anybody would be interested in using your sprites commercially - just cracks me up how high you think of your work

[FooBar]

Well, OpenTTD has been ripped off as "Transporter" already. As soon as OpenGFX is finished, they rip it off again and start selling it as "Transporter 2".

EDIT:
Also, your input has been very usefull lately. If you don't have anything usefull to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting in this topic at all.

[Zephyris]

The decision is between CC-by-SA and GPL. CC-by-SA-NC has too many distribution restrictions (eg. linux distros) to be a sensible choice. We just need the input of a dev as to whether they are happy with CC-by-SA.

[DeletedUser21]

i am still impressed that you guys think anybody would be interested in using your sprites commercially - just cracks me up how high you think of your work

No it's not that, it's just a precaution. It's like something you don't expect it to happen but you you take note of the possibility (how vague is that? I hope you got the point I was trying to make ).

[DaleStan]

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.

[Ammler]

Me thinks, you should end this discussion, you know now what the licenses are, so it is up to you, what you want. I worry, this discussion drops down the whole idea about OpenGFX, you (at most Zephyris should decide for a license and declare it as fixed. If an author is against, drop his sprites.

The Distribution isn't that important as long as you can download those somewhere, if the OpenTTD wont distribute it with your license, there will be other ways to get them. As you wont be paid for your work, does it really matter?

The most important part is, that we can link to LEGAL downloads of the base sprites. (if they are included already, that is a nice bonus)

It should be a option anyway. (only with releases, like the generic trams)

Greets
Ammler

[CommanderZ]

The Distribution isn't that important as long as you can download those somewhere, if the OpenTTD wont distribute it with your license, there will be other ways to get them. As you wont be paid for your work, does it really matter?

This matters, a lot. OGFX as I interpreted it promised to make OTTD a classical download, extract and play game. This has potential of making the game really popular, because the game really stands out with its playability and amount of possibilities. Having to DL graphics separately would heavily damage this...for absolutely futile reasons

at most Zephyris should decide for a license and declare it as fixed. If an author is against, drop his sprites.

I really think we see a failure of democracy here. And this is a solution.

[Raumkraut]

at most Zephyris should decide for a license and declare it as fixed. If an author is against, drop his sprites.

I really think we see a failure of democracy here. And this is a solution.

I agree totally. For efficiency in decision-making, brutal dictatorships are unequalled.

However, I believe the question at this point is only whether the OTTD devs are willing to distribute CC-BY-SA 3.0 content alongside OTTD. Their yay or nay will be the determining factor (even dictators must bow to the gods' will). Which raises the question of how their attention should be garnered, if it hasn't already?
I hope the devs aren't intending to decide by way of forum vote...

[Rubidium]

As many of you might know: I am not a lawyer, nor do I have any lawyer-ish background in licenses, copyright and the likes.

As far as I can find out neither GPL thinks that any of the CC licenses is compatible with GPL [1] nor does CC think that GPL is compatible with any of the CC licenses [2].
In the case that the OpenGFX remains available as a NewGRF replacement and that that is licensed under the same license, the CC license forbids the OpenGFX NewGRFs to be distributed via an automatic downloading service if that service doesn't allow downloading all data without restriction. This makes it hard/if not impossible to ever get OpenGFX NewGRFs distributed automatically [3].
One might even interprete [3] in such a manner that loading it as a static NewGRF is not allowed as there are restrictions for static NewGRFs that might be against the rights granted in CC-BY-SA 3.0.
If CC ever decides that CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later is compatible with any other license, e.g. GPL, one may adapt the OpenGFX and license it under such a compatible license [3].
Furthermore there seem to be multiple interpretations of GPL about whether game data falls under the same license as the engine or not [4].

So my personal not-a-lawyer-gut-feeling tells me that mixing licenses might be troublesome. My personal not-a-lawyer-gut-feeling is that one should avoid as much ambiguities/issues when working with licenses, so if something is not proven compatible assume it is incompatible.

If you really want to know the truth, you'll have to get the licenses tried in court, so you get precedence which you can use in further trials.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
[2] http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses
[3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/20 ... 00153.html

[matthijs]

Whilst you couldn't write such a clause into the license (as OpenTTD is not a recognised legal endity) there is no reason that permission cannot be given on an individual basis... It might be a good idea to too! The way this works legally is that as copyright holder you can re-license your work, so I could release a copy of one of my house sprites for commercial usage.

Zephyris, how would this work? The copyright on OpenGFX would lie with each individual artist, so for any kind of permission or relicensing, all artists should agree. This is annoying in the short term and impossible in the long term (new artists joining, old ones going away, etc).

This could be solved by having each artist explicitly transferring his copyright to some central entity. However, since neither OpenTTD nor OpenGFX are a legal entity (and thus not capable of holding copyright, AFAIK), this would mean a single person should get all the copyright (which people might not like).

For these reasons, I think we should find a license that fits all uses we need, now and in the future. This IMHO excludes any non-commercial licenses.


In response to what Rubidium says about the CC licences posing problems, he is reffering to the "anti-TPM" clause in 4a and 4b. The one in 4a says:

When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.

The one in 4b is similar. This clause is meant to forbid the use of DRM or similar protection measures on the content (even when the content is also provided in a DRM-less format!). IMHO this means that we might face problems in the future when using OpenGFX on platforms that force some kind of DRM (The PS3 and PSP appear to do something like this already).

Rubidium, however, is aiming for something else. OpenTTD provides the feature of automatically downloading content from a server, when joining a game. Since in this way, only the end result is downloaded, and not any original files that might be part of the entire package, this might be seem as a Technological Measure. I'm pretty sure that this is not what CC intended, but I'm afraid that the Anti-TPM clause is not worded clear enough to be certain.


Considering the above, I'm not so sure that the CC licenses are the best choice for OpenGFX.

Considering the replies I got to the debian-legal thread Zephyris linked a while back, perhaps the GPL would not be so bad at all. I haven't looked at it closely, though. What are the problems people are seeing with the GPL? People are saying "it's not meant for artwork", but can someone point out a part of the GPL that becomes ambiguous or unclear because of that? As pointed out before, the artwork of OpenGFX might actually be well suited for a source/binary division, since (AFAIK?) the artwork is generated from 3D models. Having a license that forces those source files to be available, would probably a good idea (not sure how this is managed now within the project?).

[SirkoZ]

I say keep it under GPL however those contributors who don't feel comfortable/want to restrict OpenGFX any other way should perhaps draw for someone that will pay them. Harsh but true - if OpenTTD can be GPL (developers are willing to allow it) so should OpenGFX - of course - in my opinion.

[Raumkraut]

Considering the replies I got to the debian-legal thread Zephyris linked a while back, perhaps the GPL would not be so bad at all. I haven't looked at it closely, though. What are the problems people are seeing with the GPL? People are saying "it's not meant for artwork", but can someone point out a part of the GPL that becomes ambiguous or unclear because of that?

I think that the main issue is with the definition of "source code" ("the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"). Some have posited that the GRFs themselves, or the extracted .pcx files, should be enough to count as source code. Others (myself included) disagree with this and would say that it was rather the .xcf, .psd, .blend, or whatever files were used to actually draw the sprite in the first place.

As pointed out before, the artwork of OpenGFX might actually be well suited for a source/binary division, since (AFAIK?) the artwork is generated from 3D models. Having a license that forces those source files to be available, would probably a good idea (not sure how this is managed now within the project?).

AFAICT, how the graphics are made differ from one artist to the next. I'm sure some people use blender, but equally there will be artists using Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop, the GIMP, MS paint (I do believe there is one person), etc.. If we do use the original project files as the "source", we will likely get a rather eclectic mix of file types...

[FooBar]

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). This can only be done if the source is in NFO+PCX format.
And I have the source which qualifies to the above on my computer, namely all decoded partial replacement files and for each trg*r file a commented NFO. Run those trough grfcodec and you end up with the final grf files.
A photoshop or blender or some other format is in this case not machine readable as there's no equipment or software which can transform those into the final grf format.

This makes the definition of "source code" pretty easy. Ofcourse, those 'exotic formats' can still be included with the "machine-readable source".


What still needs to be defined is the "appropriate copyright notice". If we include a very descriptive list of who worked on what, than that would define the "appropriate copyright notice", which then has to be "appropriately published on each copy". Anyone who wants to use a part of the set can then go through the list to see exactly who has to be credited for what.


I'd say, GPL the darn thing, as that makes most people happy, resolves potential issues on inclusion with OpenTTD and what not.

[LordAzamath]

Then we use pcx-es as source and get done with it.. Source doesn't mean the progress, but the result which it was compiled or something like that. Jus nfo and pcx-es are the sources and no problem.. PCX is also a preferred editing thingie because you have directly the sprites which you can handle and has palette included. (And those who don't think so, just don't say it, we will have a lot less trouble if we say that pcx is the preferred way..)

So sources are nfo and pcx, package itself is GRF and under GPL. Couldn't be simpler. Now give us some other reasons why we should not use GPL And the "gpl is not suited to artwork" is not a well enough reason. I know a lot of graphics packages which are distributed with GPL

@foobar agree.. And we can just add actionC to credit everyone inside it.. and it's there in the source too
EDIT: or give it another credits file bundled like I did with the big packs at the beginnning
[quote="The very old readme"]And now, the CREDITS part

Main guys:
Zephyris - main artist/coder of the whole project
LordAzamath - organizer of the Replacement Project, another great coder and (not so great) artist.
Soeb - Keeping wiki up-to-date and coding some stuff. Also the author of fences, electric sparks and other eyecandy things.

Other contributors:
Leppka
Skidd15
Buttercup
DJNekkid/7of9
Athanasios
Foobar
Red*Star
mph
Purno
DanMack
Prissi
Trond
Uzurpator
Roujin
thgergo
Raumkraut
Bubersson

Misc. help:
Korenn for magnificent palconvert tool
Gonozal_VIII for good feedback at IRC channel
DaleStan for some pointers for coding
[/quote]

[FooBar]

@foobar agree.. And we can just add actionC to credit everyone inside it.. and it's there in the source too
EDIT: or give it another credits file bundled like I did with the big packs at the beginnning

No, we can't ActionC the trg*r replacements, as that would break them. Every sprite has a fixed position in the file; adding ActionCs will shift the sprite order resulting in a broken file. The openttdw.grf replacement can be actionC'ed though.

So we have to include a credits file (we also have to include the license as a seperate file, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem). Indeed similar to the one you quoted, but I mean way more comprehensive. I should be able to find exactly who drew what sprite, and who figured out the offsets for (coded) it.

[richk67]

Just as an aside (probably not the place, but its on the topic of licensing)... Whatever form of licensing there is, it is worthless without enforcement.

Do all you artists really intend to enforce your copyrights on this material, considering the enormous legal costs of hiring a copyright lawyer, working cross-jurisdictions, proving copyright infringement, starting a private prosecution, opening no end of cans of worms when they counter that you (pl.) have broken the game copyright etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line is the bottom line: if you arent going to defend your copyright with the real tangible threat of legal action (ie. spend your real money defending it), then isnt this arguing over source/not source, license type, etc. all hot air?

Be realistic; we play a (for all practical purposes) freeware game using artwork created for free. Even if someone comes along and starts using the graphics to make even a few hundred pounds (they arent going to make millions!), then would the artists really club together to hire a lawyer to pursue? I doubt it.

So get real... save your working files (to prove provenance*), and stick a .txt in the .zip distribution with copyright info. Anything more just makes you feel important - but has no real effect.

* if it really did come down to a court case, then the important issue will be the provenance (ie. origin/originality) of the artwork. Having the construction files (in my photo experience - the negs, or RAW files) makes it a slam-dunk for proving they are your work. This would be the best protection against the actual copyright owners coming along and claiming all your work is derivative, and it distributes it for profit. Anyone else trying to profit just aint gonna have the clout to make enough money to be worth pursuing.

[Raumkraut]

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).

A photoshop or blender or some other format is in this case not machine readable as there's no equipment or software which can transform those into the final grf format.

Are you seriously suggesting that something is not machine readable because it can't convert to some arbitrary (in the general case) format? So XML is not a machine-readable format because it can't be used to create GRFs either?

ma·chine-read·a·ble ...
of or pertaining to data encoded on an appropriate medium and in a form suitable for processing by computer.

Photoshop runs on computers these days, right?

This makes the definition of "source code" pretty easy.

AFAICT, the GPLv2 doesn't specify a definition for "source code". However, this is not the case for either the LGPLv2.1 or GPLv3. Perhaps we should defer to those for our definition?

"Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.

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

[Raumkraut]

Do all you artists really intend to enforce your copyrights on this material, considering the enormous legal costs of hiring a copyright lawyer, working cross-jurisdictions, proving copyright infringement, starting a private prosecution, opening no end of cans of worms when they counter that you (pl.) have broken the game copyright etc. etc. etc.

That's what the EFF and FSF are for! I'm sure they'd love to see and be involved in a case involving copyright violation of GPL or CC artworks. As could a few other organisations, I'm sure. A judgement in such a case would set a precedent for such situations, which would be a BIG stick to beat other such infringers with. It's not always all about money.

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".