I just received a second such email, so there seems to be another round. (I already got one in the first round.) The text seems to be identical, but I have long since deleted the first email, so I cannot be sure. So, is the site compromised again, or do the spammers still use adresses they harvested back then?
> Add language explicitly stating that preview images fall under the same
> license as the submission and that they should not include copyrighted images,
> etc. that are not part of the submission or released under the same license as
> the submission.
I think there are valid cases of including stuff into a preview which is not part of the submission itself. I have done this in the past when extending previous submissions. One example is http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-candy. It was designed to work with LPC stuff and I included some original LPC art to prove it. At the same time it was made for a challenge, the occasion of which mandated very permissive licensing. More permissive than what the original LPC art had.
Sorry, I should not have used the ad hyperbole. I apologize for the confusion it has caused. This is not about me being unsure whether the art is under some license. It is about how I can communicate to third parties that the art I redistribute is legit. Think of Debian copyright files (see https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#copyright).
And to clear another misunderstanding: I did not intend to suggest to change the submission process (In fact, automatically generating something which looks like a hand-written license grant kind of defeats the purpose.). I merely wanted to suggest a best practice.
You could make use of the actual example tileset? That's certainly unexpected. So we have another good point for (software) freedom: Allowing good things to happen that oneself does not think of.
I will add an explicit license grant for the tileset in a moment.
Thank you for the additional licenses. I believe the original CC-BY-SA would have been sufficient for me to use the sounds, but it is always better to have more options.
Me asking for the source had several reasons. Determining whether I can actually redistribute under the GPL licenses was only one of them. Another one is that building upon the work (except for a few trivial operations) requires the source in the same way as it does for programs.
> the GPL is a poor fit for media files
I agree that the wording of the GPL makes it clear it was originally intended to be applied only to programs. But I disagree if you imply that the source requirement does not make sense for media files.
I think I will use these sounds for now but replace them eventually.
I just received a second such email, so there seems to be another round. (I already got one in the first round.) The text seems to be identical, but I have long since deleted the first email, so I cannot be sure. So, is the site compromised again, or do the spammers still use adresses they harvested back then?
> Add language explicitly stating that preview images fall under the same
> license as the submission and that they should not include copyrighted images,
> etc. that are not part of the submission or released under the same license as
> the submission.
I think there are valid cases of including stuff into a preview which is not part of the submission itself. I have done this in the past when extending previous submissions. One example is http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-candy. It was designed to work with LPC stuff and I included some original LPC art to prove it. At the same time it was made for a challenge, the occasion of which mandated very permissive licensing. More permissive than what the original LPC art had.
Sorry, I should not have used the ad hyperbole. I apologize for the confusion it has caused. This is not about me being unsure whether the art is under some license. It is about how I can communicate to third parties that the art I redistribute is legit. Think of Debian copyright files (see https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#copyright).
And to clear another misunderstanding: I did not intend to suggest to change the submission process (In fact, automatically generating something which looks like a hand-written license grant kind of defeats the purpose.). I merely wanted to suggest a best practice.
You could make use of the actual example tileset? That's certainly unexpected. So we have another good point for (software) freedom: Allowing good things to happen that oneself does not think of.
I will add an explicit license grant for the tileset in a moment.
Good luck with your project.
One more request: Would you be so kind as to provide a written license grant? The reasons for me asking are detailed in http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/on-the-importance-of-citable-license-g...
One more request: Would you be so kind as to provide a written license grant? The reasons for me asking are detailed in http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/on-the-importance-of-citable-license-g...
I would like to use one of these sounds. Would you be so kind as to provide a written license grant? The reasons for me asking are detailed in http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/on-the-importance-of-citable-license-g...
Thank you for the additional licenses. I believe the original CC-BY-SA would have been sufficient for me to use the sounds, but it is always better to have more options.
Me asking for the source had several reasons. Determining whether I can actually redistribute under the GPL licenses was only one of them. Another one is that building upon the work (except for a few trivial operations) requires the source in the same way as it does for programs.
> the GPL is a poor fit for media files
I agree that the wording of the GPL makes it clear it was originally intended to be applied only to programs. But I disagree if you imply that the source requirement does not make sense for media files.
I think I will use these sounds for now but replace them eventually.
I just asked this for another sound of yours: I consider using this, could you provide the source?
I consider using this in a game. Am I right in assuming that the sound is synthetic? If so, could you provide the source?
Pages