First there's the question of whether using art released under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0" means your game has to be released under a "same or similar licence" (whether a game counts as an "adaption" or a "collection"). This seems to be an undecided area.
But if it does, there is a problem. I would disagree with the bit that says "or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL". The actual legal text refers to "a Creative Commons Compatible License". This is defined in the licence as "a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License".
But here's the problem - http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"! So it does not seem to be true that the GPL - or any licence - can be used.
So if it were true that the CC BY-SA terms applied to a game as a whole, rather than just the artwork file itself, then this wouldn't just prohibit proprietary use, but would also prohibit any open source games using the artwork. The only allowed usage would be if the game as a whole was also released as CC BY-SA, which isn't really suitable for code. I guess one potential workaround would be to release the game binary as CC BY-SA, then release source without art as another licence, but it's a bit awkward (and no use for when you want the source archive to include the data files). To me, CC BY-SA seems a bit of a mess - I don't know if anyone has any references for solutions to this problem?
So I'd be wary of making claims like "You can't use CC BY-SA in proprietary games", because even if it was true, open source use seems to be just as problematic if the licence is read that way. The catch is I guess someone might be more likely to sue someone reusing it for commercial closed source, rather than non-commercial Open Source; also perhaps a court may rule that GPL counts as a compatible licence anyway since it's in the same spirit.
The second issue is to do with making money. You are fine to sell Free/Open Source content, including any derivative works. However some licences require you licence it under a similar term. So supposing you used a CC BY texture in a derivative work ("adaption") that you sold - it would be fine to say that no one can redistribute that derivative work. But if you used a CC BY-SA texture, then your derivative work must also be CC BY-SA. You can sell it - but anyone who buys it can then redistribute it for free.
Trying to use DRM to physically prevent redistribution creates another source of problems - IIRC, some licences have been updated to say you can't do this (e.g., GPL v3).
"My concern is not to DRM or not to DRM - but providing a direct download in my product description to - "Hey! Download the source and don't give us a penny.""
Well yes, that's exactly the point. People writing "copyleft" licences weren't doing it so that they could work for free so you could make money :) It was so that people had to add value to make it worthwhile that people would pay money for it. But there are plenty of licences that do allow use in game that isn't itself under a Free licence. It's just the unfortunate problem with CC BY-SA that we have no idea what it falls under, as I say above :)
Indeed - and in fact, Free or Open Source licences explicitly allow commercial use.
It's unclear if the OP is asking whether you need to release source code to enter the competition (to which the answer is Yes), or whether using art submitted in the competition requires you to release source code?
For the latter question, there's nothing in any Creative Commons license that requires you to release source code.
And also, if it's your code or work, you're free to do whatever you like with it - you own the copyright, so you're not bound by the terms of any licence it's released under (but you can't retroactively stop other people using something you release under the terms of the licence).
>How long does it take to get onto the Ubuntu Software Center?
My experience is it can take quite a while to get on there. One of my games took 2 months in review to get on there. A second of my games has been in review since 5 May, and I'm still waiting.
Once on there, the updates seem to be approved quite a bit quicker (though still a wait, maybe a week or so IIRC).
I'm afraid it doesn't have speech samples, I agree that would be good to have! I don't have the voice acting skills to do them myself, but that would be another example of the kind of media that would be good to add :)
I've thought about adding new features, though not done that so far. There are some minor differences, e.g., ability to properly load/save games, or the on-screen health bars. I've thought about adding more weapons. Another thing I'd like to add is multiplayer support, though this will take some work.
"Using By-SA assets with closed source code is kind of a complex issue, if I remember the various discussions I've seen on it correctly (the question being, in essence, what constitutes a derivative work that needs to also be licensed under By-SA)."
That's not quite right. There is indeed the question as to whether the CC-BY "share alike" applies to the entire work. But even if it does, I don't think there's any requirement for the work to be open source - after all, CC BY SA says absolutely nothing about source code (since it's not intended for that). You could still use with with closed source, but it would have to be freely distributable, and allow people to build derivative works (including commercial use).
Good suggestions - I've added the list of libraries of Linux to the webpage, and also added estimates for the install size (a bit hard to estimate for Linux as it depends on what libraries are already installed, but I've put the size that the Conquests folder will require, as a minimum).
I'll hopefully have online source control available soon.
I've now released version 1.0. (Not that games are ever finished :) But I hope it should be playable as a game now, and from now on it's more a case of bug fixing and whatever additional features I want to add.)
I added "rebellions" (units kind of similar to "barbarians" in Civilization, but they happen within your own territory, and the chance of them happening can be reduced by building various city improvements); Great Projects (improvements specific to a single civilization); along with actually having a game ending point (winner decided by conquering everyone else, or having the highest Power). Full history at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html#history .
I am trying to submit it through to the Ubuntu Software Centre (currently going through the submission process).
From a non-legal point of view, I'd say that things like a new programming language is created, not invented. And things like algorithms are discovered, I would say.
From a legal point, I oppose software patents.
"every year a new car is created but we dont think of it as a new invention but it has a patent."
Cars may use patented technology, but I'm not sure in which sense there is a patent for each new car?
Thanks for the link - I am a bit unclear as to how one gets a Debian package included in the various official Linux packaging systems, but I'll take a closer look.
What's the reason for making media non-free, if the game isn't being done for profit? Is it because you don't want other people profiting from the media?
I'd say it's worth mentioning explicitly what licence the media will be distributed under, if you want people to contribute for no payment (especially since Open Game Art is a site for Free media, so most people here would I imagine be less likely to want to release work under non-free licences).
I think there's a few separate issues:
First there's the question of whether using art released under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0" means your game has to be released under a "same or similar licence" (whether a game counts as an "adaption" or a "collection"). This seems to be an undecided area.
But if it does, there is a problem. I would disagree with the bit that says "or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL". The actual legal text refers to "a Creative Commons Compatible License". This is defined in the licence as "a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License".
But here's the problem - http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses says "Please note that to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility"! So it does not seem to be true that the GPL - or any licence - can be used.
So if it were true that the CC BY-SA terms applied to a game as a whole, rather than just the artwork file itself, then this wouldn't just prohibit proprietary use, but would also prohibit any open source games using the artwork. The only allowed usage would be if the game as a whole was also released as CC BY-SA, which isn't really suitable for code. I guess one potential workaround would be to release the game binary as CC BY-SA, then release source without art as another licence, but it's a bit awkward (and no use for when you want the source archive to include the data files). To me, CC BY-SA seems a bit of a mess - I don't know if anyone has any references for solutions to this problem?
So I'd be wary of making claims like "You can't use CC BY-SA in proprietary games", because even if it was true, open source use seems to be just as problematic if the licence is read that way. The catch is I guess someone might be more likely to sue someone reusing it for commercial closed source, rather than non-commercial Open Source; also perhaps a court may rule that GPL counts as a compatible licence anyway since it's in the same spirit.
The second issue is to do with making money. You are fine to sell Free/Open Source content, including any derivative works. However some licences require you licence it under a similar term. So supposing you used a CC BY texture in a derivative work ("adaption") that you sold - it would be fine to say that no one can redistribute that derivative work. But if you used a CC BY-SA texture, then your derivative work must also be CC BY-SA. You can sell it - but anyone who buys it can then redistribute it for free.
Trying to use DRM to physically prevent redistribution creates another source of problems - IIRC, some licences have been updated to say you can't do this (e.g., GPL v3).
"My concern is not to DRM or not to DRM - but providing a direct download in my product description to - "Hey! Download the source and don't give us a penny.""
Well yes, that's exactly the point. People writing "copyleft" licences weren't doing it so that they could work for free so you could make money :) It was so that people had to add value to make it worthwhile that people would pay money for it. But there are plenty of licences that do allow use in game that isn't itself under a Free licence. It's just the unfortunate problem with CC BY-SA that we have no idea what it falls under, as I say above :)
Indeed - and in fact, Free or Open Source licences explicitly allow commercial use.
It's unclear if the OP is asking whether you need to release source code to enter the competition (to which the answer is Yes), or whether using art submitted in the competition requires you to release source code?
For the latter question, there's nothing in any Creative Commons license that requires you to release source code.
And also, if it's your code or work, you're free to do whatever you like with it - you own the copyright, so you're not bound by the terms of any licence it's released under (but you can't retroactively stop other people using something you release under the terms of the licence).
>How long does it take to get onto the Ubuntu Software Center?
My experience is it can take quite a while to get on there. One of my games took 2 months in review to get on there. A second of my games has been in review since 5 May, and I'm still waiting.
Once on there, the updates seem to be approved quite a bit quicker (though still a wait, maybe a week or so IIRC).
I'm afraid it doesn't have speech samples, I agree that would be good to have! I don't have the voice acting skills to do them myself, but that would be another example of the kind of media that would be good to add :)
I've thought about adding new features, though not done that so far. There are some minor differences, e.g., ability to properly load/save games, or the on-screen health bars. I've thought about adding more weapons. Another thing I'd like to add is multiplayer support, though this will take some work.
I'm open to any suggestions of other ideas.
"Using By-SA assets with closed source code is kind of a complex issue, if I remember the various discussions I've seen on it correctly (the question being, in essence, what constitutes a derivative work that needs to also be licensed under By-SA)."
That's not quite right. There is indeed the question as to whether the CC-BY "share alike" applies to the entire work. But even if it does, I don't think there's any requirement for the work to be open source - after all, CC BY SA says absolutely nothing about source code (since it's not intended for that). You could still use with with closed source, but it would have to be freely distributable, and allow people to build derivative works (including commercial use).
Good suggestions - I've added the list of libraries of Linux to the webpage, and also added estimates for the install size (a bit hard to estimate for Linux as it depends on what libraries are already installed, but I've put the size that the Conquests folder will require, as a minimum).
I'll hopefully have online source control available soon.
I've now released version 1.0. (Not that games are ever finished :) But I hope it should be playable as a game now, and from now on it's more a case of bug fixing and whatever additional features I want to add.)
I added "rebellions" (units kind of similar to "barbarians" in Civilization, but they happen within your own territory, and the chance of them happening can be reduced by building various city improvements); Great Projects (improvements specific to a single civilization); along with actually having a game ending point (winner decided by conquering everyone else, or having the highest Power). Full history at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html#history .
I am trying to submit it through to the Ubuntu Software Centre (currently going through the submission process).
From a non-legal point of view, I'd say that things like a new programming language is created, not invented. And things like algorithms are discovered, I would say.
From a legal point, I oppose software patents.
"every year a new car is created but we dont think of it as a new invention but it has a patent."
Cars may use patented technology, but I'm not sure in which sense there is a patent for each new car?
Thanks for the link - I am a bit unclear as to how one gets a Debian package included in the various official Linux packaging systems, but I'll take a closer look.
What's the reason for making media non-free, if the game isn't being done for profit? Is it because you don't want other people profiting from the media?
I'd say it's worth mentioning explicitly what licence the media will be distributed under, if you want people to contribute for no payment (especially since Open Game Art is a site for Free media, so most people here would I imagine be less likely to want to release work under non-free licences).
Pages