Jupix wrote:I do understand the need for a separate licensing field and will implement it.
I'm now implementing this and I'm wondering which licenses I should include in the options list. (I chose to go for a list instead of freeform text field in order to ensure uniform spelling of each license, which is useful for filtering, etc.)
* @Belugas wonders what is worst... a mom or a wife...
<Lakie> Well, they do the same thing but the code is different.
______________ My patches
check my wiki page (sticky button) for a complete list
I have "Unlicensed" there, perhaps that covers it.
Edit: now that I think about it, it clearly doesn't, because "unlicensed" means the owner hasn't actually released the work into the public domain or anything. I think "Public Domain" can be included in the list of options unless there's a better term for it under the label "licensing".
Jupix wrote:I do understand the need for a separate licensing field and will implement it.
I'm now implementing this and I'm wondering which licenses I should include in the options list. (I chose to go for a list instead of freeform text field in order to ensure uniform spelling of each license, which is useful for filtering, etc.)
GPLv2
GPLv3
CC-BY-SA
Please comment.
Some of my models are CC BY. This means that You can use the model with a different license.
Sorry if my english is too poor, I want learn it, but it isn't too easy.
About non-commercial content... the new railtypes can allow to use separated ground and signals sprites. This means that We can distribute these sprites separated.
Sorry if my english is too poor, I want learn it, but it isn't too easy.
* New feature: files can now be searched, either globally via the Search top link or category-wide in the category view.
* New feature: subcategories in the category view now display the number of contained files.
* New feature: entry view now displays shared ownership status next to the entry's author.
* New feature: file owners can now assign their files a license which will be displayed in the file details view. Category listings and other file lists will display a green copyright symbol when a file has been assigned any license, and a red one when it hasn't.
* New feature: file owners can now assign their files a status from three options: WIP (work in progress), TESTING (file is released for testing purposes, essentially a beta version), and RELEASE (a final release). Category listings and other file lists will display a green dot for released files, yellow dot for files in testing, and red dot for works in progress.
* Change: Category index is now under its own page instead of being located in the Site index.
* Change: reworded edit mode link.
* Bugfix: shared ownership was not being displayed in the all files list.
* Bugfix: Site index is no longer <title>'d File index
* Bugfix: an error was being thrown when viewing a file under three conditions: edit mode was enabled, you weren't the owner of the file, and ownership of the entry wasn't shared.
* Bugfix: corrected an error that was preventing Nth "shared owners", where N>1, from editing en entry that they had privileges to.
File owners, please update your file entries to show the correct licensing and status information.
Even though "public domain" isn't a valid licensing method, I think it's an apt description for the workspace of all the OTTD artists. That makes "releasing content into the public domain" a well defined action within our group that is easily understood by those who don't care so much about the whole issue of licensing. A file being marked as being in the public domain (in our sense) makes it clear that it can be included unconditionally in our releases, whereas having no license listed at all would make it unclear if the file is usable.
I'd rather not require authors to research obscure licenses (CC0, WTFPL) to the same effect as described above. I think removing "public domain" and adding those two would result in a bunch of files listing their license as "other", described in the notes as "released into the public domain".
Unfortunatly that would mean that only people living in a country where "public domain" is valid could actually create such a pack as others aren't allowed to use the "public domain" sprites. Remember, no license (or no valid license) is no right to distribute (also use?) at all.
Perhaps you could add a description to CC0 that's is nearly the same as public domain?
Without a license both commercial and non-commercial public use is forbidden. Private personal use is generally accepted but not allowed by law: in theory nobody else knows that you're using something so you can't be prosecuted.
CC0 is in a lot of countries "as public domain as you can go": you allow people to use your work for whatever purpose they see fit without denying your own copyrights (as that's not possible in those countries).
i think public domain is best because most know it as such and no one knows cc0 or any other of license variation saying the samething.
even cc0 link http :// creativecommons.org/ publicdomain /zero/1.0/ contains it.
if possible i think its better to include some description about cc0 or whatever but keep it as public domain
I am having great difficulties uploading to the repo (this may well be a problem at my end, my internet connection is pretty flaky), would someone be able to upload the following files for me? The error I get is "The upload failed. Please send e-mail to Jupix at jkohvak@gmail.com"
