Wow, a lot has happened since 2017! The Flare Engine and Flare Game Patch 1.13 is nearly stable / finalized for a complete release. Flare Engine and Flare Game Patch 1.14 is hopefully on the way. Flare gamepad support is vastly optimized and improved. Flare with enlarged x 4 the graphical resolution / pixel density / visual display game presentation detail has a working prototype for all major PC operating systems. Windows has a no legacy memory issues with a new Windows 64-bit executable and 18.4 exabytes of usable RAM over the previous 4.2 gigabytes of usable RAM with the 32-bit executable of the legacy Flare Engine.

Justin Jacobs a.k.a Dorkster has been a Titan in empowering the Flare Engine. Also hopefully in pushing the capabilities of the Flare Engine into a being able to make video games that can with dignity and reason last well past the 2020's and beyond in terms of the gameplay quality of experience being able to stand the test of time. I hope that the Flare Engine can become a creative forge of future Classic Action Role Playing Games for this decade and subsequent decades thereafter. For the entire world creative community, rich or poor to thereby be creatively empowered.

There are new possibilities for gameplay and world exploration thanks to new art assets such as new animations and tilesets. In which I played my smart part as well in at least with creating dual wielding animations and adding navigable / climbable natural looking slopes to the Flare Game related art assets content. I hope that more and more people can enjoy the Flare Engine and the Flare Game. I hope that the creative community can find ways to keep making more cool games with the Flare Engine.

I hope people can eventually mature and properly grow their video games development interests and passions into potentially commercially viable video games. So as to probably reward and grow the work of the video game authors. Also to increase the high quality gameplay experience offered herein to the Open Game Art community and the creative community across the world.

I have hope that this community can grow larger and with more creative power. I hope that more creative people can see the potential with the Flare Engine and the related Flare Game to be empowered with to make great games worth playing. I see that currently there is a path ahead that can lead to great games made with the Flare Engine and related assets and components that can potentially change the world of video games as we know them. One person matters, anyone can improve the world so long as they keep fighting for what they believe in and listen to their heart of hearts and with their dreams and passions becoming unyielding.

With this belief and hope in the power of humanity across the world I feel confidence in that if the Flare Engine gets so creatively empowering that it can change the creative landscape of the world. In that anyone rich or poor can make a great game and become commercially viable in their dream to become a video game developer with full creative freedom and power. Then all that one needs is the passion to dream big, aim high and fight hard; become unyielding! I wonder what is to come for the creative community of Flare?

@Ragnar Random I do not want to bug Clint Bellanger about legalities unless I absolutely have to. It was already an inconvenience for Clint to play email tag back and forth with myself and for each other become clear with what I could commercially do with the Flare Engine and the Flare Game. I think it took close to a week and multiple forums / websites to respectfully get a dialog going. I understand that he is also busy with other things in his life. So I feel even worse in kind of pulling him into something that can potentially be quite inconvenient. I would like to listen to as much feedback as I can before acting. That being said I would like to better understand how I should act in good faith and in good will with regards in how I should present my circumstance / special permission / blessing from Clint Bellanger with my video game. The more feedback (within reason) the better I find it.

Thank you, that provides a lot of clarity @bzt.

""my case is an extraordinary circumstance possibly outside of the usual person who might seek to emulate any of my steps towards legally working with GPL-3.0"

If you have made an agreement with Bellanger, then that agreement is only between the two of you, and you're not using GPL for the engine any more. You're using that agreement instead as a license (which you should made clear in your video game that you're NOT using the GPL'd version of the engine)."

What should a person like myself do in such a case with their video game under such a circumstance? In the credits of the video game should there be some thing like this?:

"Myself:
"So I can make a video game "built on" the Flare Engine and Fantasy core and all Open Source / GPL-3.0 License / CC-BY-SA license assets / components with proper permissions and with proper attribution of components creditor with credits and have a registered trademarked title and legally be the sole entity able to sell that exact version of the video game online? Also the community is legally forever free to modify my video game as long as the title is changed and the video game's content is at least once modified?"

 

Clint Bellanger: [The legal copyright owner of the Flare Engine and the Flare Game]

"Basically yes on everything you said. This is one reason I chose the license, so that remixer and modders could safely release and sell their projects as long as they were also cool with other remixers and modders.""

How should such a special permission / special arrangement be clearly found with the video game and or where should such a thing be (in the video game credits, on the download page etc.)?

 

""I would imagine if someone took a Disney logo and put it on the Flare Game bundled with the Flare Engine and *sold* that bundle as their video game."

It doesn't matter if you sold it or not. You don't have the right to relicense the Disney logo under GPL, so it would be illegal no matter what (sold or not, using someone else's intellectual property without the copyright holder's permission is always illegal). For example creating a fan-game is always illegal, it's just the copyright holder usually decides not to take legal actions as long as the fan-game is free of charge. But they most likely will sue you if you try to sell your fan-game with *their* intellectual property."

Okay so copyright is quite solid and deep in ~'legal' fortification / legal protection offered to the owner of said copyright. So the very act of relicensing (without special permission from the copyright owner) with or without GPL involved is completely illegal from the start?

 

""With an effort to retroactively try to terminate the 'stolen' intellectual property trademark owner's rights via the GPL-3.0 License term of forcing all related collective content to become GPL-3.0 as well."

You got this all wrong, upside-down. GPL does not terminate the original trademark, if an asset's terms of use does not allow relicensing under the GPL then you're legally not allowed to use that asset in a GPL'd game.

If it is your trademark and you decide to license your work under GPL, then you should be aware that by doing so you give up your rights to that trademark."

Okay so the copyright owner of their own video game (without special permissions like in my case) and with their work being separate from the GPL-3.0 License ZIP / linked files; regularly has to keep the video game separate from any GPL-3.0 License components to keep their video game from being changed to a GPL-3.0 License? Yet if the video game copyright owner under regular circumstances mixes their video game with any GPL-3.0 components (e.g no special permissions and both their video game and the GPL-3.0 License components are in the same ZIP file) everything in that ZIP file (without special permissions) has to become GPL-3.0? This is in part because the copyright owner of the video game put their copyrighted video game with GPL-3.0 License components and not the user? Yet if under regular circumstances the with video game being separate from the GPL-3.0 License components / parts. With also the video game not violating the GPL-3.0 License terms on the video game owner's behalf. Can the video game owner be expected to legally be able to sell their video game separate from the GPL-3.0 license components? So GPL-3.0 could kick in if the video game author / copyright owner under regular circumstances combines their video game with GPL-3.0 license components? The user cannot take the video game author's copyrighted work / video game and ~'revoke' / remove the original video game's copyright under regular circumstances and specifically they cannot remove copyright of a work they do not own by putting said work with a GPL-3.0 License component / work; because the user does not have ownership of the video game and cannot force the video game author to make it GPL-3.0 for only the video game copyright owner has that choice to make? Is that more close how these legal details work together? As like the author of a video game only has the choice to make their copyrighted work GPL-3.0 License and no one else can force that to happen? For that would be illegal / against the legal rights of the video game author / copyright owner?

 

""even with an unregistered copyright they have sole entity ownership of their video game and can be the only one to legally sell their video game internationally?"

First, there's no such thing, registering copyright. If you're the creator of that work, then copyright is AUTOMATICALLY belongs to you (at least if you live in one of these countries, but this might be true for other countries as well). In some countries (like in mine and most of the EU), the ownership of the intellectual property is unalienatable, meaning you cannot sell the ownership even if you want to. All you can do is just licensing your work and sell the licensing right, but it is always going to be yours, no-one can take the ownership away from you. In the USA you can sell the ownership too, but I recommend to NEVER EVER do that."

From my current understanding that is technically true. Yet I heard that it is a good idea / due diligence / good practice to register a trademark and also for extra legal fortification (within reason) to register a copyright like here in Canada: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr03915.... . So that if there is ever a legal dispute / battle, your legal case is a lot more legitimate if you have a proven legally registered trademark and also copyright. It is not 'needed' but if ~'the gloves come off' / if there is a serious legal dispute / disagreement a registered trademark is very legally fortified / solid and a registered copyright is even more legally fortified / solid. I think that (in Canada at least) once a person makes something that is their own unique work, that unique work is instantly legally owned by the author of said work (under regular circumstances).

 

"Second, the copyright owner decides the terms of the use of their work by others. They can make it so that no-one else can sell their work (this usually called non-free, proprietary). But instead of figuring out the terms of use from ground up with the help of an expensive lawyer, they can instead choose to pick an already existing license. If they choose GPL as a license, then they should be aware that that license grants permission to ANYONE to sell their work, because it is a free and copyleft license. If they are not okay with that, then they should pick another license (or pay a lawyer to write their own licensing agreement)."

So it is to the copyright owner's discretion / freedom of choice to pick the license to share their copyrighted work under? No one can do this except the author of the copyrighted work? I wonder how many 'pre-made' sharing licenses there are to pick from? Is there a list or more sources than what @MedicineStorm linked here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html ?

"@WithinAmnesia: "legally becomes my intellectual property in as so far as my unique version of the collective work""
Please do not truncate my statement @bzt . This can become misinformation and taking what I originally said out of context. For clarity I do not claim ownership of the intellectual property of any of the open source / forever free components of my collective work nor do I prevent the public from using them freely as I originally found them. That being said this is original quote from my above post in full: "To the best of my understanding: Anything that I can legally share (and not prevent the original open source and or sharable work / works from also being shared separately) with / containing my registered trademark legally filed and upholding international law  / The Madrid System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_system , legally becomes my intellectual property in as so far as my unique version of the collective work; so far as if I have my registered trademark within said unique collective work."

I am open for discussion and I believe that it would be better for the sake of clarity to have everyone go over the GPL-3.0 / GNU license details. For a quick reference here is the Wikipedia article  (which I presume is accurate for educational purposes) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Use_of_licensed...

"Use of licensed software

Software under the GPL may be run for all purposes, including commercial purposes and even as a tool for creating proprietary software, such as when using GPL-licensed compilers.[49] Users or companies who distribute GPL-licensed works (e.g. software), may charge a fee for copies or give them free of charge. This distinguishes the GPL from shareware software licenses that allow copying for personal use but prohibit the commercial distribution or proprietary licenses where copying is prohibited by copyright law. The FSF argues that freedom-respecting free software should also not restrict commercial use and distribution (including redistribution):[48]

In purely private (or internal) use-with no sales and no distribution-the software code may be modified and parts reused without requiring the source code to be released. For sales or distribution, the entire source code needs to be made available to end users, including any code changes and additions-in that case, copyleft is applied to ensure that end users retain the freedoms defined above.[50]

However, software running as an application program under a GPL-licensed operating system such as Linux is not required to be licensed under GPL or to be distributed with source-code availability-the licensing depends only on the used libraries and software components and not on the underlying platform.[51] For example, if a program consists only of original source code, or is combined with source code from other software components,[d] then the custom software components need not be licensed under GPL and need not make their source code available; even if the underlying operating system used is licensed under the GPL, applications running on it are not considered derivative works.[51] Only if GPLed parts are used in a program (and the program is distributed), then all other source code of the program needs to be made available under the same license terms. The GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) was created to have a weaker copyleft than the GPL, in that it does not require custom-developed source code (distinct from the LGPL'ed parts) to be made available under the same license terms.

The fifth section of version 3 states that no GPL-licensed code shall be considered an effective "technical protection measure" as defined by Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and that those who convey the work waive all legal power to prohibit circumvention of the technical protection measure "to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work". This means that users cannot be held liable for circumventing DRM implemented using GPL v3-licensed code under laws such as the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).[52]

Copyleft
Main article: Copyleft

The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'ed work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.

This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), they can be sued by the original author under copyright law.

Copyright law has historically been used to prevent distribution of work by parties not authorized by the creator. Copyleft uses the same copyright laws to accomplish a very different goal. It grants rights to distribution to all parties insofar as they provide the same rights to subsequent ones, and they to the next, etc. In this way the GPL and other copyleft licenses attempt to enforce libre access to the work and all derivatives.[53]

Many distributors of GPL'ed programs bundle the source code with the executables. An alternative method of satisfying the copyleft is to provide a written offer to provide the source code on a physical medium (such as a CD) upon request. In practice, many GPL'ed programs are distributed over the Internet, and the source code is made available over FTP or HTTP. For Internet distribution, this complies with the license.

Copyleft applies only when a person seeks to redistribute the program. Developers may make private modified versions with no obligation to divulge the modifications, as long as they do not distribute the modified software to anyone else. Copyleft applies only to the software, and not to its output (unless that output is itself a derivative work of the program).[e] For example, a public web portal running a modified derivative of a GPL'ed content management system is not required to distribute its changes to the underlying software, because its output is not a derivative.

There has been debate on whether it is a violation of the GPL to release the source code in obfuscated form, such as in cases in which the author is less willing to make the source code available. The consensus was that while unethical, it was not considered a violation. The issue was clarified when the license was altered with v2 to require that the "preferred" version of the source code be made available.[55] "

Now also here is the GNU website for reference: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

Now here is the Flare Engine GPL-3.0 License: https://github.com/flareteam/flare-engine + https://github.com/flareteam/flare-engine/blob/master/COPYING

Some key quotations from the Flare Engine GPL-3.0 License:
"Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it." -Line 40

"For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software.  For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions." -Line 44 [Note: when I say my 'unique work' in context to my work with the Flare Engine this is describing my modified version(s) that I developed and that I am the author thereof.]

"0. Definitions.

  "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

  "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.

  "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License.  Each licensee is addressed as "you".  "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

  To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy.  The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

  A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.

  To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy.  Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.

  To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies.  Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

  An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License.  If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion." -Line 73

"4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

  You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

  You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

  5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

  You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
    it, and giving a relevant date.

    b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
    released under this License and any conditions added under section
    7.  This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
    "keep intact all notices".

    c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
    License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.  This
    License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
    additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
    regardless of how they are packaged.  This License gives no
    permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
    invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

    d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
    Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
    interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
    work need not make them do so.

  A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit.  Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate." -Line 195 [Note: my trademark is for my separate works regarding my medieval fantasy setting applicable to multiple forms of media. My video game made using the Flare engine is an aggregate of the open source Flare Engine and of my own separate copyrighted and trademarked medieval fantasy works.]

"7. Additional Terms.

  "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law.  If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.

  When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it.  (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.)  You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

    a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
    terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or

    b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
    author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
    Notices displayed by works containing it; or

    c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
    requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
    reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

    d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
    authors of the material; or

    e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
    trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

    f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
    material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
    it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
    any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
    those licensors and authors.

  All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10.  If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.  If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.

  If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.

  Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions;
the above requirements apply either way." -Line 343

"10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

  Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License.  You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

  An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations.  If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

  You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License.  For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it." -Line 446

"Selling Free Software

Some views on the ideas of selling exceptions to free software licenses, such as the GNU GPL are also available.

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible-just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.

Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

The word "free" has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of "free software," we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of "free speech," not "free beer.") Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, study and change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.

Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.

Nonfree programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is nonfree because its users are denied freedom.

Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn't make the software free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community. For a distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit to free software development projects or to the Free Software Foundation. This way you can advance the world of free software.

Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!

In order to contribute funds, you need to have some extra. If you charge too low a fee, you won't have anything to spare to support development." - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

"Selling exceptions depends fundamentally on using a copyleft license, such as the GNU GPL, for the free software release. A copyleft license permits embedding in a larger program only if the whole combined program is released under that license; this is how it ensures extended versions will also be free. Thus, users that want to make the combined program proprietary need special permission. Only the copyright holder can grant that, and selling exceptions is one style of doing so. Someone else, who received the code under the GNU GPL or another copyleft license, cannot grant an exception." - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

"I have been in contact with Clint Bellanger and I have a lot more clarity now and it looks good. I can legally sell my video game and the community can also be forever free to modify my video game:

 

*after a ~long series of confidential emails / out of respect Clint Bellanger I will only post a very small brief piece for educational reasons / to add closure to this thread*

 

Myself:
"So I can make a video game "built on" the Flare Engine and Fantasy core and all Open Source / GPL-3.0 License / CC-BY-SA license assets / components with proper permissions and with proper attribution of components creditor with credits and have a registered trademarked title and legally be the sole entity able to sell that exact version of the video game online? Also the community is legally forever free to modify my video game as long as the title is changed and the video game's content is at least once modified?"

 

Clint Bellanger: [The legal copyright owner of the Flare Engine and the Flare Game]

 

"Basically yes on everything you said. This is one reason I chose the license, so that remixer and modders could safely release and sell their projects as long as they were also cool with other remixers and modders."" - Second Post from the top of this thread https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/if-i-make-a-video-game-via-the-flare-...

With all of that considered and quoted my fingers and brain are a bit sore XD. It appears to myself that I am legal and not in breach of the GNU / GPL-3.0 License with my use of the Flare Engine in my permission provided by the legal copyright holder with this statement (as quoted above): ""So I can make a video game "built on" the Flare Engine and Fantasy core and all Open Source / GPL-3.0 License / CC-BY-SA license assets / components with proper permissions and with proper attribution of components creditor with credits and have a registered trademarked title and legally be the sole entity able to sell that exact version of the video game online? Also the community is legally forever free to modify my video game as long as the title is changed and the video game's content is at least once modified?

Clint Bellanger: [The legal copyright owner of the Flare Engine and the Flare Game]

"Basically yes on everything you said. This is one reason I chose the license, so that remixer and modders could safely release and sell their projects as long as they were also cool with other remixers and modders.""

To my current understanding I am acting in good faith, good will and with proper accreditation of the respective entities related to my unique work and I am being legal with my commercial operations in regards to my development and planned commercial release of my video game(s) made with the Flare Engine. I hope that my open form of discussion has improved clarity on my part and I am acting to uphold the spirit for open source software and the aims of the GNU and the spirit and good will of the Open Game Art community.