Transport Tycoon Forums

Read the link!

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Zephyris wrote:Read the link!

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Was that aimed at me? If so, read my post! All of it, not just the first sentence.

... there is no "By attribution" clause. There's an attribution clause, whose symbol is "BY" though.

The point was that "byA" is not the correct code for the "attribution" CC clause. Slipups like that cause lawyers to salivate.

Also, CC licenses are up to version 3.0 by now (you linked to a 2.5), which I believe are more compatible with other FLOSS licenses than their 2.x counterparts (Debian rejected all of the 2.x licenses, for example).

(quote from other thread)

mld wrote:CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC-SA are incompatible with the GPL. A GPL program needs to have the possibility to be sold and modified without crediting the authors. But the derivative works have always to keep the same license.

If parts of OpenTTD are not free software, most Linux and BSD distributions will refuse to distribute it in their repositories. This is a quite big problem.

Using GPL means that only another GPL licenced games can reuse the graphics. Not for example any closed-source freeware games.

If someone wants to make prints of the graphics and distribute them then they have to supply the prints with the GPL licence. But I think this is a very unlikely scenario.

The program as in OpenTTD can be sold/modified anyways. It's just that the graphics cannot be included in some of those cases. That's really not different than the current situation.

Even with OpenGFX under CC, OpenTTD will still be free software. Definitely with "free" as in "free beer". And in most cases "free" as in "free to do whatever you like". In those distributions are currently distributing OpenTTD (without graphics!) they still can in the future, just by leaving the graphics out. No problem at all. Not even a tiny one.

Mandatory distributing the license with print holds true for whatever license you choose, just because every license requires the work to be distributed under the same license.

Raumkraut wrote:CC-SA

Only the ShareAlike part isn't too useful, because probably everyone attaches more value to the Attribution part.

Ok, my alternative foundations were not included. But still ...

However, assuming it is GPL. Then it would be then ok to make a simutransTTD from these graphics without asking? (Even though it is inpolite.) In such a way the possbile reusing of graphics is not entirely theoretical (albeit it would be still non-commercial). Also the Freetrain people are out there and could decide to use some of the graphics; even some railroad tycoon clone is thinkable with an isometric instead top down projection. Since there are more train simulator out there than OpenTTD, one should think of this for a while.

Actually for the non-commercial part we chose the Artistic Licence for Simutrans, which only allows a distribution fee but not selling the software. This was the best open source licence we found for the game and the graphics to satisfy this condition. (And it still allowed for inclusion into debian.)

(slightly offtopic: Freetrain had a strange "licence", many graphics were accompanied by a file which stated ok, for non-commercial games like simutrans ... But then, would it be not ok for TTD-Patch? But then those are identical to OpenTTD ... well licences, better use one of the predefined one.)

[EDIT: On hindsigth this seems to be the wrong thread to post this, please move it to the other one.]

prissi wrote:Then it would be then ok to make a simutransTTD from these graphics without asking?

That's possible with any of the licenses Zephyris suggested in his first post...

Which is exactly why I suggested those licences. They are all "open" to some extent, and would not restrict the use in any similar open source project...

do whatever you do with my grapics ... it's "only" a train and a half anyway or all together, probaly a train (SH125 + chimaera, and both have been altered by danmack iirc)

enjoy!

You already know my thesis from my posts in other threads. Not available for commercial usage. If they contribute to the project and we* agree to it and to that this is a useful contribution, then a special license can be granted to use them. Certainly I am against monetary support. I understand contribution as new artwork, code for OTTD or hosting services.

All other good guys who work on non commercial projects are free to use our artwork as long as they stay non commercial, attribution is given and we are informed (probably a post in OpenGFX thread?) that they will use them. Does anyone want to restrict usage to non war games only ( ) ?

* Please don't post simply to repeat that all artists cannot be found. Active artists can represent all of us at a given time.

regards
athanasios

Zephyris wrote:GNU Public License.
Free to be modified? Yes

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike.
Free to be modified? Yes, on the condition of attribution

Are you trying to imply that the GPL does not require attribution? If so, you are quite mistaken.

If GPL requires attribution (which includes crediting, isn't it?), then that would be a great plus IMO.
If it also can forbid commercial usage, I see no reason not to agree with a GPL license.
Just my point of view.

Purno wrote:If GPL requires attribution (which includes crediting, isn't it?), then that would be a great plus IMO.
If it also can forbid commercial usage, I see no reason not to agree with a GPL license.
Just my point of view.

Sure enough the GPL does include an attribution.

GPL allows to sell the product, while at the same time allows anyone who has a copy to re-distribute it for free. So the only money in store for GPL software is for service, for handy packaging, supplying nice installers etc.

As people seem to argue about licenses without ever bothering to read them, a few exerpts from the GPL FAQ:

FAQ GPL wrote: Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other free software licenses?

Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license.

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

I want to get credit for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. Can I still get credit if I use the GPL?

You can certainly get credit for the work. Part of releasing a program under the GPL is writing a copyright notice in your own name (assuming you are the copyright holder). The GPL requires all copies to carry an appropriate copyright notice.

Read more at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... singTheGPL

It still allows commercial companies to make profit of it, though they gotta compete with free sources? Is that right?
That means it may be unlikely that commercial companies invest in making GPL'd work commercially available, but not impossible. (Not everyone knows the free sources...)

Purno wrote:It still allows commercial companies to make profit of it, though they gotta compete with free sources? Is that right?
That means it may be unlikely that commercial companies invest in making GPL'd work commercially available, but not impossible. (Not everyone knows the free sources...)

That's right. But they MUST distribute the software with the GPL license and they MUST offer the sources for the same price or less than a compiled version - so everyone who buys it from them and bothers to read
- knows that the software is freely distributable
- may redistribute it free of charge
- should be able to use google
- is in need of getting rid of the money as it should be available elsewhere with less or for no fee
- might value the service offered around the download or shipment or bundeling or service for the software
- might appreciate that they support OpenTTD by distributing it to the wide public EDIT: sure, it's far better to directly support the OpenTTD project, but well... the GPL license requires attribution - and that may (does?) contain a link to openttd.org

It's basically the same like SuSE or RedHat make money: They earn for the service offered around linux and a bit for shipping the distributions on CD / DVD boxed with install instructions.

you did not quite follow - they dont make profit with your work, they make profit with their work (packaging / installer / handbooks / etc)
if your art work happens to be on the medium sold, atrackting the user to buy, they still only pay for the packaging / installer / handbooks / etc.

+ you will want OpenTTD to be able to put screenshots on mugs and sell those right?
and they dont make profit with the screenshot that is on the mug, they make the money by selling the mug / mousepad / shirt / whatever

now lets ask again: what is the issue with gpl?

before this discussion came up i actually thought this project (and it's authors) were gonna be different to all other grf's and their authors (not a far fetched thought as the project is called OpenGFX, let me highlight the OPEN part). i did think you wuys were wanting to have your work distributed with each copy of OpenTTD - in fact i was hoping for that to happen.
is all this really because one person started saying "i dont want ..."? i do not see the point in trying to support a GPL project, if one is not able to just give up the work one did in the benefit of the project. granted, credit is to be given, no doubt about that - you guys have spent an amazing amount of hours and have shown a bunch of dedication, and cannot and will not argue against that (and i have quite some respect for what you have archieved, and i admit i did not believe in the beginning it would succeed this well, or at all)
however this discussion simply sadens me, to the point where i could lose all respect for the project. i could shove all artists into 'the draw of snobs' (ok - there are a few who dont belong there i know).
i take a look at the devs of OpenTTD, i see dedication over many years, i see love for the project, i see interest in wanting to improve things and create new features. i see an aim, i see a vast amount of time invested (yes, you guys have invested time and effort, but not even close to what the devs have done). this project has been alive for years and has lived because people simply gave their work to the project, time and dedication. each one of those people have a private life, some have families to take care of, and yet they support and build this project. those are people i admire!

It seems you are convicing me to agree to the GPL license.
If the main developers of OpenGFX (those who contributed the most) want GPL, I'm going with them, as long as my name is somewhere in the list of people who contributed. (which is possible in GPL, I've read).

Wow this is being blown out of proportion. I said "preferably not" to GPL, as in I would prefer an alternative, but I will release under GPL if this is the desired option. To keep it simple the OpenTTD devs can choose which licence they want my work released under. Have fun

Zephyris wrote:Wow this is being blown out of proportion. I said "preferably not" to GPL, as in I would prefer an alternative, but I will release under GPL if this is the desired option. To keep it simple the OpenTTD devs can choose which licence they want my work released under. Have fun

Zephyris, please don't get my argument wrong . I don't want your awesome and probably partially also tedious work on a lot of graphics taken from you or your work belittled (on the contrary!) and I want all of you contributors to OpenGFX given your credit as you deserve it by all means! You all did great work and I very much hope so that you'll want to continue with further great contributions OpenTTD would miss much without.

Though I was initially of the impression that a CC license might suffice, GPL seems like the better way to go as it allows easier bundling (DaleStan made IMO quite a good point there) and merchandise for the sake of the OpenTTD project may seem (easier) possible as well as inclusion in distribution or give-away game or programme collections. And this would rather spread the artists' fame than mute it

Regards,
pm

athanasios wrote:* Please don't post simply to repeat that all artists cannot be found. Active artists can represent all of us at a given time.

No, no, no! In court, lawyers would eat you alive, with that attitude!
Unless the absent artists in question explicitly transfer copyright to another entity, nobody can relicense their work without their permission! If you don't have permission to relicense, you either have to replace the absent artist's works, or commit copyright infringement!


And to everyone who wants a non-commercial clause in the license; you do realise that this will make the license incompatible with the GPL, right?

dihedral wrote:before this discussion came up i actually thought this project (and it's authors) were gonna be different to all other grf's and their authors (not a far fetched thought as the project is called OpenGFX, let me highlight the OPEN part)...
...however this discussion simply sadens me, to the point where i could lose all respect for the project.

Wow, so a discussion about which open license to use (let me highlight the OPEN part) inclines you to lose respect for the project? Your lack of faith disturbs me.

if you read on, you will find out why! hint: inclusion in OpenTTD to be distributed with every release?

dihedral wrote:if you read on, you will find out why! hint: inclusion in OpenTTD to be distributed with every release?

I'm not sure what you're getting at?
AFAICT you seem to be arguing that only GPL is acceptable for content included with GPL'd software, which is not true. Tremulous, for example, is a GPL'd game which has its data licensed under a creative commons license. They don't seem to have had problems with getting distributed (it's in the Debian/Ubuntu repositories).

I believe I've already mentioned why it could be inadvisable to use the GPL for OpenGFX: The GPL was simply not written to apply to anything other than source code. In the case of artworks, it contains ambiguous and inappropriate terminology. If anyone thinks that having such things in licensing terms isn't a problem, then maybe they should leave the discussion to people who are aware of how much the real world actually sucks.