Revision notes are publicly visible in the "revision" tab, but only to those who are logged in. Notes like this should probably be added to the description rather than comments section.
Good question. I mean, yes the artwork and design is copyrighted (of which this does not seem to be a derivative), but I need to see if the similarities here infringe upon the trademark. At the very least the term "UNO" should not be associated with a clearly similar card game.
Any license terms that apply to the files in the "File(s)" section must be forthright and clear. The terms hidden in the single frame of the preview image are both obfuscated and illegible. If they are the same terms as the license indicated in the "License(s)" section, there is no need to include them at all. If they are not the same as the selected "License(s)", then they are in conflict. Please remove the terms or make them available in plain text.
I think it would be easier to include a flag/checkbox/dropdown menu in the site search that restricted the search to specific collection(s) such as "my downloads" or "my favorites"
Either way, a good idea, so I'll keep that in mind for the next site version.
@DocHHH: what is the nature of your confusion? The previews seem to be a good representation of how the "File(s)" could be used. Was your question not adressed by the author's note?
"Note: SVG files are plain white on transparent background and dont have any effects. Previews are created in gimp using artistic->softglow effect and colorize. Sorry if they are misleading"
There is no requirement that profile pictures adhere to submission guidelines; you aren't sharing your profile picture for FOSS distribution.
There are no restrictions beyond "try to keep it SFW" and "do not attempt to impersonate other users".
Revision notes are publicly visible in the "revision" tab, but only to those who are logged in. Notes like this should probably be added to the description rather than comments section.
Thanks for the updated work!
I really like this. A supreme example of "minimalist ≠ dull"
bumped for new content.
Good question. I mean, yes the artwork and design is copyrighted (of which this does not seem to be a derivative), but I need to see if the similarities here infringe upon the trademark. At the very least the term "UNO" should not be associated with a clearly similar card game.
Any license terms that apply to the files in the "File(s)" section must be forthright and clear. The terms hidden in the single frame of the preview image are both obfuscated and illegible. If they are the same terms as the license indicated in the "License(s)" section, there is no need to include them at all. If they are not the same as the selected "License(s)", then they are in conflict. Please remove the terms or make them available in plain text.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
bumped for new content.
I think it would be easier to include a flag/checkbox/dropdown menu in the site search that restricted the search to specific collection(s) such as "my downloads" or "my favorites"
Either way, a good idea, so I'll keep that in mind for the next site version.
@DocHHH: what is the nature of your confusion? The previews seem to be a good representation of how the "File(s)" could be used. Was your question not adressed by the author's note?
Excellent revision.
In the attribution section, please include a link to the original asset. Without it, the attribution is incomplete.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Pages