@William: Don't worry about it. The fact that the response was so big proves that there's an immediate need, so I'm responding to that.
@Julius: I've had extensive email discussions on the CC community mailing list about that, and the fact is that even though I came up with (IMO) a reasonably effective way of doing this that would still be free software, they're so intent on the idea that it's impossible that it would never be accepted, and I'm not going to put up licenses that will never be accepted by the community, even if I happen to believe that they're valid. (OGA-BY is protected from this by clause 8g, which allows the work to be used under CC-BY, which is already an established license.) I'm done with that fight. If someone else wants to take it up for me, then by all means go for it. I'd love to see the license you're asking for, but outside of OGA, no one is remotely interested in entertaining the idea.
If you're interested in reading this (very long) discussion, you can find it archived on the web here:
I gave up when people started claiming (in all seriousness) that a word processor is meant to open a specific document, rather than as a tool for opening many documents.
I can't use OGA as the driving force behind getting the license accepted, because people who use the art here need to know that the licenses are already considered to be acceptable by the community at large.
I would contact them and ask to make sure that they didn't take the art down due to a licensing problem. (It's not clear to me why the art was deleted, but in the past people have taken art down because they did it on contract and didn't actually have the rights to distribute it.)
Provided there's no licensing issue, you're within your rights to use any work that you downloaded under the stated license, even if it was removed from OGA. That being said, out of respect for the artist, I'd strongly encourage you to ask them first.
Nice, although a right-click on the link adds a download.
Yeah, there isn't really a way to do this with javascript and avoid that. Unfortunately, javascript can't tell if you right click and hit "save as", so I have to detect right clicks when they happen and assume that they indicate an intent to download a file. It's not perfect, but since some file types require that they be right clicked to download them, I have to do it that way.
As a suggestion, maybe you could write a custom script, use mod-rewrite to hook any files to it, and count downloads through there instead? This will have the advantage of not having any weird scripts visible to the public, and will count the link rights (instead of relying on user click input).
It can't work quite like that, because I don't want to incur the processor overhead of streaming files through a download script. The best I could do is change the file download links to point to a script that counts the download and then redirects the browser to the actual download link, but the trouble there is that it would probably open a new page every time someone downloads a file, which is annoying from the user side. If I'm wrong and there's some way to do it without either of these problems (and without the downloader having to rename the file, which was really irritating), then I'm open to suggestions. :)
Just a quick note regarding my previous comment - If you understand the implications of waiving the anti-DRM clause on CC-BY-SA, I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing that (nor could I if I wanted to). Just be sure you understand what you're doing before you do it. :)
I see a trend appearing so I'll say this now: the anti-DRM clause is not just present in CC-BY, it's present in all CC licenses except CC0. It would be most useful to waive the anti-DRM clause for all CC licenses, not just CC-BY if you're willing. Thank you.
Allowing DRM kind of defeats the purpose of an -SA license, since it allows people to do an end run around the requirement that the content be shared. I wouldn't personally recommend waiving the anti-DRM clause on CC-BY-SA.
This submission and the two similar ones really should be grouped together as a single submission. If you look at the top of the page on your submissions, there's an edit tab there, where you can upload additional files and preview images.
@William: Don't worry about it. The fact that the response was so big proves that there's an immediate need, so I'm responding to that.
@Julius: I've had extensive email discussions on the CC community mailing list about that, and the fact is that even though I came up with (IMO) a reasonably effective way of doing this that would still be free software, they're so intent on the idea that it's impossible that it would never be accepted, and I'm not going to put up licenses that will never be accepted by the community, even if I happen to believe that they're valid. (OGA-BY is protected from this by clause 8g, which allows the work to be used under CC-BY, which is already an established license.) I'm done with that fight. If someone else wants to take it up for me, then by all means go for it. I'd love to see the license you're asking for, but outside of OGA, no one is remotely interested in entertaining the idea.
If you're interested in reading this (very long) discussion, you can find it archived on the web here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2011-December/006456.html
I gave up when people started claiming (in all seriousness) that a word processor is meant to open a specific document, rather than as a tool for opening many documents.
I can't use OGA as the driving force behind getting the license accepted, because people who use the art here need to know that the licenses are already considered to be acceptable by the community at large.
Here's the link to the artist's page:
http://opengameart.org/users/dhondon
I would contact them and ask to make sure that they didn't take the art down due to a licensing problem. (It's not clear to me why the art was deleted, but in the past people have taken art down because they did it on contract and didn't actually have the rights to distribute it.)
Provided there's no licensing issue, you're within your rights to use any work that you downloaded under the stated license, even if it was removed from OGA. That being said, out of respect for the artist, I'd strongly encourage you to ask them first.
The attribution instructions were:
"Credit me as "Tom Klovholt" and add a link to my portfolio: www.shadow-embryo.com"
I feel like there was a forum thread on creating FLARE assets ages ago, but it's probably buried deep in the past by now.
Nice, although a right-click on the link adds a download.
Yeah, there isn't really a way to do this with javascript and avoid that. Unfortunately, javascript can't tell if you right click and hit "save as", so I have to detect right clicks when they happen and assume that they indicate an intent to download a file. It's not perfect, but since some file types require that they be right clicked to download them, I have to do it that way.
As a suggestion, maybe you could write a custom script, use mod-rewrite to hook any files to it, and count downloads through there instead? This will have the advantage of not having any weird scripts visible to the public, and will count the link rights (instead of relying on user click input).
It can't work quite like that, because I don't want to incur the processor overhead of streaming files through a download script. The best I could do is change the file download links to point to a script that counts the download and then redirects the browser to the actual download link, but the trouble there is that it would probably open a new page every time someone downloads a file, which is annoying from the user side. If I'm wrong and there's some way to do it without either of these problems (and without the downloader having to rename the file, which was really irritating), then I'm open to suggestions. :)
Got it, thanks. :)
So is this like tetris but with poop?
Just a quick note regarding my previous comment - If you understand the implications of waiving the anti-DRM clause on CC-BY-SA, I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing that (nor could I if I wanted to). Just be sure you understand what you're doing before you do it. :)
I see a trend appearing so I'll say this now: the anti-DRM clause is not just present in CC-BY, it's present in all CC licenses except CC0. It would be most useful to waive the anti-DRM clause for all CC licenses, not just CC-BY if you're willing. Thank you.
Allowing DRM kind of defeats the purpose of an -SA license, since it allows people to do an end run around the requirement that the content be shared. I wouldn't personally recommend waiving the anti-DRM clause on CC-BY-SA.
I waive the DRM clause on all of my own CC-BY licensed assets, as well as all CC-BY licensed assets commissioned by OGA.
This submission and the two similar ones really should be grouped together as a single submission. If you look at the top of the page on your submissions, there's an edit tab there, where you can upload additional files and preview images.
Pages