Rename it wizard.jpg and what's the issue? I would hope "man with long white hair and robes" isn't copyrighted, otherwise loads of RPGs and other fantasy media are out of luck (it could just as well be dumbledore).
Since writing that post, I've had a hunt around Open Game Art, and replaced a lot more of the graphics - I've released the new version (0.25) (see above for download links).
It's still far from perfect:
* The buildings are still placeholders - rendered with POVRay, but very simple.
* Some sprites (defenders, and the cannon, catapult) are static images rather than animated.
Eclipse works as you describe, I just click a button (well OK, a few buttons, but it's straightforward) and it generates the apk. I imagine the newer android studio is similar.
If you want a game engine, Unity seems to be well used, is free (as in cost), and exports to android.
I don't think there's a way round installing something heavyweight, it's like asking to do windows development without installing the SDK. You can use something else instead, but game engines are still going to be fairly big. (Yes you can make a command line hello world a lot easier, but that's not useful on a platform like android.)
Note that the zip contains a license.txt with a different licence (Common Public License Version 1.0) to CC BY 3.0, this should probably be removed (or listed as a dual licence option) to avoid confusion.
It's a misleading example, as Java can do one line initialisation:
Vector v = Arrays.asList( new char[]{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'} );
And Vector is ancient; these days you'd write it as:
List<char[]> v = Arrays.asList( new char[]{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'} );
It's still not quite as quick as Python, but it isn't the long winded mess as suggested in the example.
Whilst Java also requires extra additional lines for the class and function, "how much boilerplate code you need to get started" isn't that great a method of comparing languages - by this reasoning, BASIC comes out great for hello world :) When you have a large codebase, the extra lines from things like functions aren't significant, and also how well the code can be structured is more important than a pure number of lines count.
It's also about choosing the right tool for the job - languages like Python, Perl, Lua etc are great for producing code quickly with minimal code; they also come with useful types that are built into the language rather than being classes written in that language. So they're especially useful for things like scripting and prototyping. But that doesn't mean they're better for everything.
There aren't any such "Free" licences (by definition - such a licence wouldn't be considered "Free" or "Open"), and so none on this site that would allow this.
Creative Commons did once have such a licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling/1.0/ (which allowed commercial or non-commercial use but only for creative transformations); also https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ (which also permitted verbatim redistribution but only for non-commercial use). Creative Commons no longer recommend their usage (reasons given "Not compatible with any other CC license, inadequate demand").
One way to look at it though - if you're happy for people to use your work, does it matter if people also sell copies? Either they're adding value (e.g., consider how many Linux CDs have been sold with magazines), or they're not (in which case people can just as well download from here). There is also the problem that with games it can be unclear if something has been sufficiently transformed (e.g., suppose a model is being used in the game, but the 3D model is stored as a file without changes in the distributable archive).
Screenshots are an interesting issue - the licence and copyright status of screenshots of games tends to be unclear, and I can see a developer might release their screenshots under a free licence without realising the consequences.
OTOH, what is the point of free licences, if we fear it's unethical to do what the person has told us we can do? There are not "Free licences" and "Free licences for things that can be used in games". In this case it's probably a Good Thing to ask to make sure they understand the implications, but I don't think anything is unethical by doing what has been permitted, and plenty of Free art/music may be useful in things other than what the original authors may have had in mind (incorrect licensing OTOH - including by the authors themselves - I would argue is unethical).
Note that it's not true that Wikipedia requires images with a free license - there are many exceptions, including Fair Use (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hellenicphalanx.JPG ). Also there may be other reasons for not releasing sprite sheets, e.g., it takes extra effort for them to release assets separately, or also, they may have decided that extracting from screenshots is of far lesser value that they don't really care (so I can crop a few still graphics from those screenshots, great - it's a far cry from the full animated set of sprites). It's not like one can recreate the game or anything near it with some screenshots. Judging by their FB response, it seems they don't consider the screenshots to be of significant value for creating other games. I don't think anything is obvious.
I think asking them is a good idea, and if they say no, it fits with the rule that people can ask for media to be removed (even if it's legally allowed here). But if they care about that, it would also be worthwhile telling them that they shouldn't be using CC-BY-SA as a licence, as even if it's not on OGA, there's nothing stopping people making derivative works from the screenshots as hosted elsewhere such as Wikipedia. (They might want to consider CC BY ND.)
Regarding the debate on whether asking people in advance of uploading if you're not the author should be recommended or required, some related threads are http://opengameart.org/comment/37964 and http://opengameart.org/comment/38365 . There is also the question of how "own works" applies to derivative works (e.g., if I create a 3D model using a Free texture from elsewhere).
I don't think trying to claim what is ethical or unethical is helpful though. Admins should do what they think is best for the site (whether that's doing things on a case by case basis - "we should get explicit permission for this one" - or making a change to the FAQ or rules).
Rename it wizard.jpg and what's the issue? I would hope "man with long white hair and robes" isn't copyrighted, otherwise loads of RPGs and other fantasy media are out of luck (it could just as well be dumbledore).
Version 0.28 is now released! See https://sourceforge.net/p/gigalomania/blog/2015/10/version-028-released/ for more details. I've also updated the first post of this topic so it's more up to date.
Since writing that post, I've had a hunt around Open Game Art, and replaced a lot more of the graphics - I've released the new version (0.25) (see above for download links).
It's still far from perfect:
* The buildings are still placeholders - rendered with POVRay, but very simple.
* Some sprites (defenders, and the cannon, catapult) are static images rather than animated.
But still, looking better than it was! The full list of items used is at http://opengameart.org/content/art-used-in-gigalomania , or also see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/comp_gigalomania.html#licences for the full list. Of particular help were the LPC sprites, and this entry, allowing me to generate a range of animated characters.
Eclipse works as you describe, I just click a button (well OK, a few buttons, but it's straightforward) and it generates the apk. I imagine the newer android studio is similar.
If you want a game engine, Unity seems to be well used, is free (as in cost), and exports to android.
I don't think there's a way round installing something heavyweight, it's like asking to do windows development without installing the SDK. You can use something else instead, but game engines are still going to be fairly big. (Yes you can make a command line hello world a lot easier, but that's not useful on a platform like android.)
Note that Google play doesn't force apps to have DRM.
Note that the zip contains a license.txt with a different licence (Common Public License Version 1.0) to CC BY 3.0, this should probably be removed (or listed as a dual licence option) to avoid confusion.
Attribution should be given: http://developer.android.com/distribute/tools/promote/brand.html#brand-a...
It's a misleading example, as Java can do one line initialisation:
Vector v = Arrays.asList( new char[]{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'} );
And Vector is ancient; these days you'd write it as:
List<char[]> v = Arrays.asList( new char[]{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'} );
It's still not quite as quick as Python, but it isn't the long winded mess as suggested in the example.
Whilst Java also requires extra additional lines for the class and function, "how much boilerplate code you need to get started" isn't that great a method of comparing languages - by this reasoning, BASIC comes out great for hello world :) When you have a large codebase, the extra lines from things like functions aren't significant, and also how well the code can be structured is more important than a pure number of lines count.
It's also about choosing the right tool for the job - languages like Python, Perl, Lua etc are great for producing code quickly with minimal code; they also come with useful types that are built into the language rather than being classes written in that language. So they're especially useful for things like scripting and prototyping. But that doesn't mean they're better for everything.
There aren't any such "Free" licences (by definition - such a licence wouldn't be considered "Free" or "Open"), and so none on this site that would allow this.
Creative Commons did once have such a licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling/1.0/ (which allowed commercial or non-commercial use but only for creative transformations); also https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ (which also permitted verbatim redistribution but only for non-commercial use). Creative Commons no longer recommend their usage (reasons given "Not compatible with any other CC license, inadequate demand").
One way to look at it though - if you're happy for people to use your work, does it matter if people also sell copies? Either they're adding value (e.g., consider how many Linux CDs have been sold with magazines), or they're not (in which case people can just as well download from here). There is also the problem that with games it can be unclear if something has been sufficiently transformed (e.g., suppose a model is being used in the game, but the 3D model is stored as a file without changes in the distributable archive).
Screenshots are an interesting issue - the licence and copyright status of screenshots of games tends to be unclear, and I can see a developer might release their screenshots under a free licence without realising the consequences.
OTOH, what is the point of free licences, if we fear it's unethical to do what the person has told us we can do? There are not "Free licences" and "Free licences for things that can be used in games". In this case it's probably a Good Thing to ask to make sure they understand the implications, but I don't think anything is unethical by doing what has been permitted, and plenty of Free art/music may be useful in things other than what the original authors may have had in mind (incorrect licensing OTOH - including by the authors themselves - I would argue is unethical).
Note that it's not true that Wikipedia requires images with a free license - there are many exceptions, including Fair Use (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hellenicphalanx.JPG ). Also there may be other reasons for not releasing sprite sheets, e.g., it takes extra effort for them to release assets separately, or also, they may have decided that extracting from screenshots is of far lesser value that they don't really care (so I can crop a few still graphics from those screenshots, great - it's a far cry from the full animated set of sprites). It's not like one can recreate the game or anything near it with some screenshots. Judging by their FB response, it seems they don't consider the screenshots to be of significant value for creating other games. I don't think anything is obvious.
I think asking them is a good idea, and if they say no, it fits with the rule that people can ask for media to be removed (even if it's legally allowed here). But if they care about that, it would also be worthwhile telling them that they shouldn't be using CC-BY-SA as a licence, as even if it's not on OGA, there's nothing stopping people making derivative works from the screenshots as hosted elsewhere such as Wikipedia. (They might want to consider CC BY ND.)
Regarding the debate on whether asking people in advance of uploading if you're not the author should be recommended or required, some related threads are http://opengameart.org/comment/37964 and http://opengameart.org/comment/38365 . There is also the question of how "own works" applies to derivative works (e.g., if I create a 3D model using a Free texture from elsewhere).
I don't think trying to claim what is ethical or unethical is helpful though. Admins should do what they think is best for the site (whether that's doing things on a case by case basis - "we should get explicit permission for this one" - or making a change to the FAQ or rules).
Pages