fish? largemouth bass, fish? rainbow trout, tigerfish salmon, catfish, carp, dark wizard, dark wizard (dead), harpy, amalgamated monster (a la "Frankenstien's"), gargoyle
small fish? largemouth bass, small fish? rainbow trout, small tigerfish salmon, small catfish, small carp, gargantuan purple worm, naga (or more likely a nure-onna), lizardman, dragonkin, drakonkin jr. kobold
If you want to have flexibility in licensing, I recommend continuing to select both OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0. Although 4 is more forgiving, having both lets the user decide. Why would they choose to use a less forgiving license? Because their other assets may already use OGA-BY 3. They can choose to keep all assets under one license instead of having some be 3 and others be 4.
As for the notice, I would say change it to indicate "the base parts seen in the preview are not included. See ULPCCG <link>" or something. Not a requirement, though. Your call.
"...I have added both OGA-BY 3 as well as the new OGA-BY 4. I don't really know the difference..."
FYI: the difference between OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0 is, in short, brevity and a cure clause. If someone fails to credit you for using these under OGA-BY 3.0, they are immediately in violation and must cease the use of your assets. Under 4.0, they have 30 days to fix the problem. By including both, you have left it up to the users which one they want to apply to their project. Very generous of you, so thank you.
This is great. Please do keep contributing to these assets!
Please see the Universal LPC Character Generator for credits on outfit and base pieces:
If the outfits and base pieces are included in the downloadable file here, then the credits for those pieces must be attributed here. You can include a text file inside the package that details credit (put "See CREDITS.TXT for attribution information" in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section), but you can't outsource the credit to some other page for content downloaded from here. This also affects the licenses. If any part of this package contains assets that are not OGA-BY, then the whole package must licensed under the license common to all components. Is that the case?
NOTE: using derivative assets (stuff you didn't create from scratch) in just the previews (but are not included in the downloadable files) does not affect licensing or attribution.
May I ask what other components, if any, that you didn't make entirely yourself were used in this set? Is any of it derived from other's LPC work? It determines what the correct license and attribution should be.
Disregard. I assumed the textures were not included in Quaternius's submission here: https://opengameart.org/content/lowpoly-textured-trees and were instead embedded within the models. That is not the case. These same textures are also found there, so this is not adding anything new. Users can simply get the same textures by downloading Quaternius's submission, making these duplicate.
Looking at this it seems like this would be a good value-add. In this case, my earlier comment about Step #2 doesn't apply. However, because these assets are indeed already on OGA, a link directly to the OGA copy should also be included in the description. No need to remove the links to Quaternius' page. Those are also good. As for the virus, VirusTotal.com says it's clean. It is a new file, so maybe that's a false negative, but I'm working on a way to safely double-check it.
Yuss! I love them all! The bugbear had me stumped for a bit. I was thinking "oh, what's that monster that looks like Huge Jackman!"
Hahah! I hadn't even considered the talkative point system as a venue for awarding fictional internet points. Wonderful. Thank you.
This is a testament to your art skills that such a diverse set of creatures are so clearly identifiable at
16x1612x12 pixels. Excellent work, Clint.in order of tilemap.png:
I'm certain I didn't interpret all of them right. Let me know which ones are incorrect. I want those bonus points! EDIT: corrections
Nice.
If you want to have flexibility in licensing, I recommend continuing to select both OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0. Although 4 is more forgiving, having both lets the user decide. Why would they choose to use a less forgiving license? Because their other assets may already use OGA-BY 3. They can choose to keep all assets under one license instead of having some be 3 and others be 4.
Fantastic. All is good, then. :)
As for the notice, I would say change it to indicate "the base parts seen in the preview are not included. See ULPCCG <link>" or something. Not a requirement, though. Your call.
FYI: the difference between OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0 is, in short, brevity and a cure clause. If someone fails to credit you for using these under OGA-BY 3.0, they are immediately in violation and must cease the use of your assets. Under 4.0, they have 30 days to fix the problem. By including both, you have left it up to the users which one they want to apply to their project. Very generous of you, so thank you.
This is great. Please do keep contributing to these assets!
If the outfits and base pieces are included in the downloadable file here, then the credits for those pieces must be attributed here. You can include a text file inside the package that details credit (put "See CREDITS.TXT for attribution information" in the Copyright/Attribution Notice section), but you can't outsource the credit to some other page for content downloaded from here. This also affects the licenses. If any part of this package contains assets that are not OGA-BY, then the whole package must licensed under the license common to all components. Is that the case?NOTE: using derivative assets (stuff you didn't create from scratch) in just the previews (but are not included in the downloadable files) does not affect licensing or attribution.EDIT: Resolved, thanks! :)
YAY!
May I ask what other components, if any, that you didn't make entirely yourself were used in this set? Is any of it derived from other's LPC work? It determines what the correct license and attribution should be.
Disregard. I assumed the textures were not included in Quaternius's submission here: https://opengameart.org/content/lowpoly-textured-trees and were instead embedded within the models. That is not the case. These same textures are also found there, so this is not adding anything new. Users can simply get the same textures by downloading Quaternius's submission, making these duplicate.
@Starry Skydancer: Did you want me to republish the stuff you took down due to the false positive? Or are you still verifying what's going on?
BTW I really appreciate you proactively looking out for everyone, even if it turns out there was not really any risk.
Are you able to upload them as a regular .zip file? It may allow the virus scanners to take a closer look inside without unleashing a threat.
Looking at this it seems like this would be a good value-add. In this case, my earlier comment about Step #2 doesn't apply. However, because these assets are indeed already on OGA, a link directly to the OGA copy should also be included in the description. No need to remove the links to Quaternius' page. Those are also good. As for the virus, VirusTotal.com says it's clean. It is a new file, so maybe that's a false negative, but I'm working on a way to safely double-check it.
Pages