Nice table. 

What texture were all the texture components made from? It appears to be a photorealistic wood texture.

Please do not republish or resell though.

All licenses on OGA allow for resale by necessity. I know you mean you don't want others to resell the asset by itself, but saying "do not replublish or resell" causes unintended legal entanglements that make it effectively unusable, even when it's only being used inside a game project. Even a free game project. Would you be willing to omit that part? That would make it legally usable, but still very difficult for anyone to actually resell it by itself: The license you selected requires the potential reseller to credit you and link back to this page. Any possible customers would clearly see it is available for free and not bother paying the reseller for it. In the meantime, I must download-disable this submission to prevent people from using it in a way you may not approve of. Let me know if you have any questions.

EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)

That is a good point. (Not the "Fair-use" bit. That's irrelevant here. OGA doesn't accept Fair-use content, nor forbid Fair-use application of any of our assets.) The most ethical way to train AI is using openly licensed content. We don't have any closed licenses on OGA. It seems somewhat contradictory to say "Anyone can use this for whatever they want. Ultimate freedom. But not you, AI. I don't like you specifically. No freedom for you."

In that case, if the question is "What features of a license would forbid AI?", the answer is "The same feature that prevents it from being accepted on OGA."

Sorry, Skydancer. I'm confident there is a license that accomplishes* what you want (or if it doesn't already exist, there someone out there crafting it right now) but such a license will probably never be added to the list of licenses on OGA. But, as hecko mentions, all of the -BY licenses require attribution. If the courts decide- or if a particular AI model is crafted in such a way- that the training of AI is not simply Fair-Use, then the model must provide appropriate attribution to every -BY licensed asset used. If they do not, they are violating the license. I reiterate that hinges on the model training being Fair-Use or not. That's either a model-specific detail or a court-has-yet-to-weigh-in detail.
*(I have no idea how the terms of such a license would be enforced. If an AI model admitted to using your works, you could enforce it, but as glitchart pointed out, it would be extremely difficult to prove a breach of license otherwise.)

"...put up a tiny barrier that would discourage most scrapers,..."

That is an interesting approach. Artists could use data-poisoning techniques, so long as it didn't interfere with the usefulness of the asset otherwise. 

"...e.g. uploading as a .zip file (perhaps with a simple password)."

This I must recommend against. Password-protecting an archive, uploading it to OGA, and sharing the password in the description would have limited success in hindering scrapers, but massive hinderance for legitimate users. Such files will be removed from OGA. 

Unless the concern is individuals copying the style, which... hmm, I'm not sure if any sequence of words would discourage them.

Even if there were, it wouldn't be a valid license; artistic style is explicitly NOT copyrightable.

Please use an audio file as the first preview file. It is fine to have "album art" but people can't listen to the picture. It also makes this submission look like 2D art on the gallery page.

EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)

I'm sorry, but if it were entirely hopeless to enforce IP around AI training datasets, then the top image generative AI companies wouldn't be actively getting sued for exactly that: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_District_Court/3--...