Is there the source for this? Remember that the source should be made available for this build (for the GPL, but I also imagine it's of more use for the developers, and also would allow testing on other platforms...)
Freedroid has real-time combat I think. And I think Dawn RPG is real-time. I'm writing a real-time RPG, Erebus ( http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/erebus-a-new-rpg-which-reuses-flare-gr... ), I'm sure there must be others too. An earlier (unreleased) RPG I was writing was turn based, but I think it slowed the pace too much. I think turn-based works better when you have no animation, so characters can still quickly jump from tile to tile (or whatever), making it still fast, but not so much if every character has to move in turn.
I do find it interesting that most open source games seem to be rogue-likes - in particular, it seems strange you have games that can be very complex technically, but then opt for ascii or simple tile based graphics; other genres in open source gaming feature graphics (whether good or bad!)
Diablo was sometimes considered rogue-like because it shared features with those in the rogue-like genre (hack and slash, randomly generated dungeons), though it wasn't turn based. Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike ) describes other features of rogue-likes in general: randomised effect of magic items, single player, permanent death. This comes from http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Berlin_Interp... which features a longer list.
I'd say rogue-likes are more a vague subset of RPGs, and not a 3rd classification to turn based and real time.
"It defines anything that depends on that project is a derivative work."
Which bit of the licence is this?
"On the otherhand, CC-By-Sa deals with art and for games as I remember there is an FSF statement stating code and art are separate."
But the FSF are behind the GPL, not CC-BY-SA (which is by Creative Commons).
The question of whether a copyleft licence on art applies to the game exe/code is I feel uncertain both with the GPL and CC BY-SA. The FSF's position seems to be that you shouldn't use the GPL for art. OTOH, CC BY-SA is intended for art, and I don't think Creative Commons have clarified the effect on games?
If what usr_share says is true - "And a game engine / code is hardly a derivative work of the game assets / data" (and I think it is a good argument), wouldn't this apply to GPL art too?
The GPL defines a "work" as "either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program" (where "program" is the thing covered by the licence, so in this discussion, it confusingly means the art:)), and distinguishes this from compilations: "A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate."
CC BY-SA meanwhile distinguishes "Adaption" from "Collection", the former defined as "a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original".
But yes, licencing as both is better, and I agree CC BY is simpler too :)
There's a similar discussion going on at http://opengameart.org/content/fantasyart-background regarding use of GPL - in short, it's unclear what the GPL means for art/music (what counts as "source"?), or how it applies to the game licence when used in a game (does it have to be GPL too?), and licences like CC BY may be worth adding (remember one can release under multiple licences to reduce risk of licence incompatibility problems).
"My interpretation is CC-By-Sa and GPL is not compatible and cannot co-exist in same project. Not because of CC-By-Sa but because of GPL."
What causes the problem, out of interest?
CC BY-SA also has the problem that it's unclear if the "share alike" clause applies to the entire game - in which case, that means the entire game must be distributed as CC BY-SA, making it incompatible with the GPL.
Note that no Free licence prevents commercial usage (by definition). There also doesn't seem to be a licence that says it can only be used with Open Source - using the GPL might do that, but no one really knows how it applies to art.
A problem with the proposed code licence, saying some art can only be used in projects with some licences, is it's basically writing a new copyleft licence, which I think we want to avoid. Any new licences need lawyers to look over them, and I'm not sure it's good to add more licences, risking more incompatibility.
Also, since it isn't the same as putting the art under that licence, I don't see how it helps anyway?
Are there cases where art is licenced as bsd, or is this hypothetical?
Yep, I have several more planned, but they will take some time to write/implement each of them. (Am also thinking of having some kind of random level or quest generation, to help extend the playability.)
Even if "include a graphic in a game" was a case of "build upon this work", there's still no requirement to release the source - there's nothing in CC BY-SA that says one must release source code, or anything about source code at all.
It's also worth noting that "same or similar license" is defined as being either CC BY-SA 3.0 or later, or a "Creative Commons Compatible License", defined at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses . However, that page says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"!
So the "similar" bit is irrelevant at the moment, and certainly doesn't include options like the GPL. If CC BY-SA did apply to the game to, then the only way to use CC BY-SA art would be to also release the game as CC BY-SA. Which would mean GPL games using it would be in violation just as much as a closed source one...
I know what the OGA FAQ says - but I disagree with it; I can't see any justification in the licence for those claims (either that source must be released, or that the GPL counts as a similar licence - it doesn't, as there are currently no "similar" licences).
I think in practice, most people assume that CC BY-SA doesn't apply to the game - or if it does, many Open Source uses are also in violation, and CC BY-SA is next to useless as a licence (at least, as far as game development is concerned).
I've just released v0.5 (though anyone playing from the Repository will already have the recent changes of course).
Additional player graphics would be great (I know FLARE already has a female player that I could also use), but it's not a high priority right now - as an easier first step, I will try to add some 2D static portrait/avatar images for each character.
Is there the source for this? Remember that the source should be made available for this build (for the GPL, but I also imagine it's of more use for the developers, and also would allow testing on other platforms...)
"I think the YouTube video part can cause copyright/trademark problems."
Which bit is that? I don't see any problems...
Freedroid has real-time combat I think. And I think Dawn RPG is real-time. I'm writing a real-time RPG, Erebus ( http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/erebus-a-new-rpg-which-reuses-flare-gr... ), I'm sure there must be others too. An earlier (unreleased) RPG I was writing was turn based, but I think it slowed the pace too much. I think turn-based works better when you have no animation, so characters can still quickly jump from tile to tile (or whatever), making it still fast, but not so much if every character has to move in turn.
Also see http://forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4070 for a similar topic about Free RPGs.
I do find it interesting that most open source games seem to be rogue-likes - in particular, it seems strange you have games that can be very complex technically, but then opt for ascii or simple tile based graphics; other genres in open source gaming feature graphics (whether good or bad!)
Diablo was sometimes considered rogue-like because it shared features with those in the rogue-like genre (hack and slash, randomly generated dungeons), though it wasn't turn based. Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike ) describes other features of rogue-likes in general: randomised effect of magic items, single player, permanent death. This comes from http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Berlin_Interp... which features a longer list.
I'd say rogue-likes are more a vague subset of RPGs, and not a 3rd classification to turn based and real time.
"It defines anything that depends on that project is a derivative work."
Which bit of the licence is this?
"On the otherhand, CC-By-Sa deals with art and for games as I remember there is an FSF statement stating code and art are separate."
But the FSF are behind the GPL, not CC-BY-SA (which is by Creative Commons).
The question of whether a copyleft licence on art applies to the game exe/code is I feel uncertain both with the GPL and CC BY-SA. The FSF's position seems to be that you shouldn't use the GPL for art. OTOH, CC BY-SA is intended for art, and I don't think Creative Commons have clarified the effect on games?
If what usr_share says is true - "And a game engine / code is hardly a derivative work of the game assets / data" (and I think it is a good argument), wouldn't this apply to GPL art too?
The GPL defines a "work" as "either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program" (where "program" is the thing covered by the licence, so in this discussion, it confusingly means the art:)), and distinguishes this from compilations: "A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate."
CC BY-SA meanwhile distinguishes "Adaption" from "Collection", the former defined as "a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original".
But yes, licencing as both is better, and I agree CC BY is simpler too :)
There's a similar discussion going on at http://opengameart.org/content/fantasyart-background regarding use of GPL - in short, it's unclear what the GPL means for art/music (what counts as "source"?), or how it applies to the game licence when used in a game (does it have to be GPL too?), and licences like CC BY may be worth adding (remember one can release under multiple licences to reduce risk of licence incompatibility problems).
These look great!
"My interpretation is CC-By-Sa and GPL is not compatible and cannot co-exist in same project. Not because of CC-By-Sa but because of GPL."
What causes the problem, out of interest?
CC BY-SA also has the problem that it's unclear if the "share alike" clause applies to the entire game - in which case, that means the entire game must be distributed as CC BY-SA, making it incompatible with the GPL.
There's some discussion on this at http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/practicality-of-cc-by-sa - using instead CC BY has the advantage that it's a lot clearer what it means.
Note that no Free licence prevents commercial usage (by definition). There also doesn't seem to be a licence that says it can only be used with Open Source - using the GPL might do that, but no one really knows how it applies to art.
A problem with the proposed code licence, saying some art can only be used in projects with some licences, is it's basically writing a new copyleft licence, which I think we want to avoid. Any new licences need lawyers to look over them, and I'm not sure it's good to add more licences, risking more incompatibility.
Also, since it isn't the same as putting the art under that licence, I don't see how it helps anyway?
Are there cases where art is licenced as bsd, or is this hypothetical?
Yep, I have several more planned, but they will take some time to write/implement each of them. (Am also thinking of having some kind of random level or quest generation, to help extend the playability.)
Even if "include a graphic in a game" was a case of "build upon this work", there's still no requirement to release the source - there's nothing in CC BY-SA that says one must release source code, or anything about source code at all.
It's also worth noting that "same or similar license" is defined as being either CC BY-SA 3.0 or later, or a "Creative Commons Compatible License", defined at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses . However, that page says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"!
So the "similar" bit is irrelevant at the moment, and certainly doesn't include options like the GPL. If CC BY-SA did apply to the game to, then the only way to use CC BY-SA art would be to also release the game as CC BY-SA. Which would mean GPL games using it would be in violation just as much as a closed source one...
I know what the OGA FAQ says - but I disagree with it; I can't see any justification in the licence for those claims (either that source must be released, or that the GPL counts as a similar licence - it doesn't, as there are currently no "similar" licences).
I think in practice, most people assume that CC BY-SA doesn't apply to the game - or if it does, many Open Source uses are also in violation, and CC BY-SA is next to useless as a licence (at least, as far as game development is concerned).
I've just released v0.5 (though anyone playing from the Repository will already have the recent changes of course).
Additional player graphics would be great (I know FLARE already has a female player that I could also use), but it's not a high priority right now - as an easier first step, I will try to add some 2D static portrait/avatar images for each character.
Pages