MegaGlest Forum
Modding and game content creation => Mods => Topic started by: Omega on 11 May 2011, 22:26:15
-
>> This page on the wiki (https://docs.megaglest.org/Licenses)
So you made a mod. Excellent, but even though you may think you are done, you still have one final step before you can distribute it to everyone: you must choose how it will be licensed. Licensing affects how others will be able to use your mod. Too strict and your mod becomes isolated and usable only for playing, too loose and you may find parts of your mod used in ways that you don't want.
For clarification, it's not your mod you are licensing, it's every individual file in that mod. Thus, when you say your mod is licensed under CC-BY-SA, this means every individual file is CC-BY-SA. You can have multiple licenses by making some files one license and some others. For example, the music might be CC-BY-SA, while the rest could be the laxer CC-BY. This is generally done by having a plain text filed named "AUTHORS", etc distributed with your mod explaining what files are under what licenses.
We are going to assume that you wish to have your mod available for free, and that others will be able to use your resources. Glest itself follows these principles, so sharing is the norm around here, and will likely increase the success and popularity of your mod. For this purpose, there are the following main licenses:
CC-BY
Creative Commons Attribution is a license that permits other people to use your work in virtually any way they want, as long as they give you proper credit. This can include your name (e.g. Ringo Starr), your pseudonym (e.g. BeatleDrums420), and/or a link to your website (e.g. http://beatledrums420.example.org).
Why you might want to use this license: You want everyone to be able to use your work in their own projects, for whatever purpose and whatever kind of project they want, but you want credit to be given where credit is due. If that sounds like you, this is your license. This license is also compatible with nearly every license under the sun (including the GPL), so the content is highly reusable. Also, if the developers of another game use your content, you can always put that on your résumé.
Why you might NOT want to use this license: If you want to pick and choose how people use, modify, or redistribute your work, this is not the license for you.
CC-BY-SA
Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike and Non-commercial share-alike are similar. People can share (copy, distribute and transmit) the work, and remix (adapt) the work. It includes the same attribution terms as CC-By, so you can still include your name, pseudonym, and/or web address.
When someone shares or remixes the work, they must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (in this case, you) (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). If they alter, transform, or build upon this work, they may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. This means that if you make something for a Glest mod and another modder, artist, or developer wants to use it in their own project, you get credit for it and it remains under CC-By-SA.
These limitations can be waived if they get permission from the copyright holder (you), and where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
Why you might want to use this license: Others will be able to use your content in their own projects, and any modifications and/or improvements they make will also be shared back with the community and you (so it encourages even more sharing). This ensures that the content will be used only in projects with Free/Open content, such as Free and Open-Source games, and not in the next Command & Conquer title.
Why you might NOT want to use this license: The downside to CC-By-SA is that it can ONLY be used with other CC-By-SA assets. This is why you may want to consider dual-licensing, or using CC-By instead.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/
CC-BY-NC-SA
Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike and Non-commercial Share-alike have many similarities, but there is a key difference. Non-commercial (NC) content cannot be used in commercial projects.
Why you might want to use this license: You want your work to be distributed for personal/private use, or you yourself want to make money from it while keeping others from competing with you.
Why you might NOT want to use this license: Work under this license is incompatible with most other free licenses (including CC-By-SA and GPL), which makes it tricky to incorporate this work in other projects. Thus, this content is most suited to personal use by players, not distribution in another project.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/
GPL
The GPL, or GNU General Public License is a free license that gives the ability to let others modify your work, and is the most commonly used free license. The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. 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. To protect your rights, the GPL needs to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. 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.
The GPL is not really meant for content, but rather for programs. However, some Free and Open-Source projects use GPL for art assets anyway. Neither the GPL nor any of the CC licenses are exclusive, so in fact you can license a work as both GPL and CC-something (and/or numerous other licenses), allowing the user to use the content under whichever terms are more favorable. For example, dual-licensing a work as CC-By-SA and GPL allows games with CC-By-SA art (like 0AD) and ones with GPL art (like The Battle for Wesnoth) to both use your content, but still keeps it out of the hands of those who are themselves unwilling to share.
Why you might want to use this license: If you want to allow other games with GPL art to use your content, this is a good choice. However, it is preferable that you also release it under one of the CC licenses as well, to ensure greater compatibility/reusability.
Why you might NOT want to use this license: If you license your content only as GPL, then it will only be usable in other GPL projects, not in anything else. Dual-licensing gets around this.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
CC0 (Public Domain)
If you don't want to have any restrictions at all, and don't mind if others can use your work in any way (which can include uncredited usage in commercial applications), then CC0 (zero) is basically a public domain license.
In contrast to CC’s licenses that allow copyright holders to choose from a range of permissions while retaining their copyright, CC0 empowers yet another choice altogether – the choice to opt out of copyright and database protection, and the exclusive rights automatically granted to creators – the “no rights reserved†alternative to our licenses.
Why you might want to use this license: You want everyone to be able to use your work however they please, and you don't really care whether you get credit or not. Alternatively, if the work is small or not very significant (like a single sound effect), and you don't want other modders, artists, or developers to have to bother crediting you, CC0 can save them the trouble.
Why you might NOT want to use this license: If someone uses your CC0-licensed work in a way that you don't like, there is not much you can do about it. Also, if anyone else's work is included in your work, you MUST have permission from the other author(s) in order to release it into the public domain. This means that if you're using any content from Glest's original assets (e.g. Magitech), you cannot use this license for that work because it doesn't entirely belong to you. You can, however, use multiple licenses, with the copyrighted assets under their respective licenses and only what you made under CC0.
http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
Helpful Links
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_licenses
Recommendation
Personally, I recommend using CC-BY-SA, as it is the most versatile and allows people to modify your assets while still protecting them better than the GPL. The non-commercial variant is not recommended because it can prevent some modders from using your media. The GPL is not meant for assets, so does not cover them as well. CC-BY-SA is also one of the most commonly used free licenses in the world, being used on many large projects like Wikipedia, Wikia, and many Glest mods.
This main post may be frequently updated. Moderators may edit as they see fit, but should leave an edit summary below.
Edit History:
11/05/2011 3:57am GMT - Omega: First version of this page
11/05/2011 4:05am GMT - Omega: Expanded CC0 section
11/05/2011 4:14am GMT - Omega: Added wiki link
11/05/2011 4:24am GMT - Omega: New "Helpful Links" section
11/05/2011 5:13am GMT - Omega: Added a recommendation
11/05/2011 6:11am GMT - Ultifd: Added link to license chooser at top
11/05/2011 6:53am GMT - Omega: Modified sentence structure of previously added line
11/05/2011 6:06pm GMT - Omega: Change as per John: https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=7106.msg72897#msg72897
14/05/2011 3:27am GMT - Omega: Clarification on how multiple licenses work, also, sticked by John.d.h
-
Lots of great stuff are public domain: the english language, shakespeare, the patient on powered flight, and many other inventions who's patients have expired (usually 20 years).
First, patent, not patient. Second, patents are NOT the same thing as copyrights. We're talking about a work of creative expression here, not an invention. Anyway, there isn't really an internationally-recognized public domain. The easiest thing would be to release the work under CC0 or WTFPL.
CC0 enables scientists, educators, artists and other creators and owners of copyright- or database-protected content to waive those interests in their works and thereby place them as completely as possible in the public domain, so that others may freely build upon, enhance and reuse the works for any purposes without restriction under copyright or database law.
<snip />
Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain.
http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ (http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/)
-
No restrictions? That's great, but if I were you I would release it as the one where it can't be used for commercial reasons and you have to credit...
http://creativecommons.org/choose/
-
where it can't be used for commercial reasons
Ugh... why!?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)
-
CC-BY-SA is very nice. It's what wikipedia, wikia, and military are all under.
In a nutshell:
You can sell it, remix it, redistribute it, but you must credit the authors and it must be under the same license.
-
CC-BY-SA is very nice. It's what wikipedia, wikia, and military are all under.
In a nutshell:
You can sell it, remix it, redistribute it, but you must credit the authors and it must be under the same license.
Yes, and it only shares with people who are also willing to share, so that's some protection against (e.g.) Microsoft taking your work and putting it in Age of Empires 4. Everybody wins except those who don't deserve it on account of being misers. 8)
Maybe we should have a nice thorough discussion of mod licensing in a new thread. I may post one later tonight (but don't hold me to that).
-
Mr.War said, no restrictions. What's the big deal with licensing, he doesn't care!? :look:
-
What's the big deal with licensing
We're on a tangent, which is why we should probably make another thread instead of drawing it out in this one.
-
The above posts between the first post and here are split from the Imperial Faction thread (https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=6404.msg72868).
-
I think we should establish some conventions. What is the standard procedure, what is desirable, etc. I'm in favor of CC-By-SA, and strongly opposed to any non-commercial license.
-
Everybody has their own opinions. You shouldn't force them to have a specific license. Maybe force is the wrong term, I mean recommend. Just have a list... A lot of mods use the --NC-- license, especially the maps and tilesets. If we're just talking about techtrees/factions then it's just Japanese and Annex, I think. Hmm...they both have something in common. The wiki should be talking about everything though. Even though for maps it kinda doesn't make sense.
Shouldn't http://creativecommons.org/choose/ be on the top of the post/page though?
-
I think recommendations are a good thing because a lot of artists don't really want to get into the complexities of copyright. Plus, getting everybody on the same page is a good thing when it comes to licensing. I couldn't put Japanese into Project Red due to the NC clause, for example.
And GPL is *not* a content license! :wicked: About half of it has no meaning when applied to something other than a program (source code, etc.). Dual-licensing as GPL and something else is fine, though. That allows the misguided few projects who use GPL for their assets (e.g. Wesnoth), to use the content as well.
-
True, but then again it's not that complicated. IMO it would just be the forum theme + the very long descriptions that would make it seem complicated to new modders.
With http://creativecommons.org/choose/ it's pretty simple.
I couldn't put Japanese into Project Red due to the NC clause, for example.
Well if there were any more factions included in it, people would say it would be bloated anyways. Besides, it's going to be in it's own techtree and there's a possibility that it might be in the megapack, so a faction being in 3 packs is kinda unusual and weird.
-
I think recommendations are a good thing because a lot of artists don't really want to get into the complexities of copyright.
I added a recommendation. Naturally, it's biased, but I think it should reflect at least a good portion of the community's thoughts.
And GPL is *not* a content license! :wicked: About half of it has no meaning when applied to something other than a program (source code, etc.). Dual-licensing as GPL and something else is fine, though. That allows the misguided few projects who use GPL for their assets (e.g. Wesnoth), to use the content as well.
Ooh, I never knew that... Seen a lot of things with GPL, so kinda misguiding =P. Should we keep it in (added a note that it's not really meant for content) or remove it from this list?
I couldn't put Japanese into Project Red due to the NC clause, for example.
How so? You can just ask the developer and get that clause waived. Nice thing about CC licenses is that they can be waived with permission easily.
With http://creativecommons.org/choose/ it's pretty simple.
Helpful Links
- http://creativecommons.org/choose/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_licenses
-
For NC, that isn't really a good reason. That only applies to Project Red and weren't you guys saying that it shouldn't be too big? Or else it would be bloated? Contradictions...
With http://creativecommons.org/choose/ it's pretty simple.
Helpful Links
- http://creativecommons.org/choose/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_licenses
Shouldn't http://creativecommons.org/choose/ be on the top of the post/page though?
Since it's such an essential link...just put this at the top: Since some future modders will probably be too lazy and etc...
tl;dr
Visit this link: http://creativecommons.org/choose/
Hmm perhaps tl; cr? something like that. (can't)
-
I agree with ultifd, that it should be up to the modder, CC by SA is the standard so i can understand why it would be recommended, but i think me must also inform them that there are even more options out there. I want to release CC by NC-SA So whats so wrong about NC?? It seem as though there are those who are against it whole heartily :look:
Like omega said you can always get it waived, if one contacts the original artist.
-
NC only makes sense if you per se seek to make money off of something, while sharing it with others, without helping your competition. It seems like a lot of artists license as NC because they don't want some big developer grabbing their content and using it to make the next big commercial game. However, it's not like Electronic Arts or Blizzard is going to use your CC-By-SA art in the next Command & Conquer or Somethingcraft anyway, because they wouldn't dare share alike, so the NC clause is only going to hurt other indie FOSS titles, not big corporate giants.
-
NC only makes sense if you per se seek to make money off of something, while sharing it with others, without helping your competition. It seems like a lot of artists license as NC because they don't want some big developer grabbing their content and using it to make the next big commercial game. However, it's not like Electronic Arts or Blizzard is going to use your CC-By-SA art in the next Command & Conquer or Somethingcraft anyway, because they wouldn't dare share alike, so the NC clause is only going to hurt other indie FOSS titles, not big corporate giants.
Summed up the main reason I converted from using the NC clause.
-
How about this?:
>> This page on the wiki (https://docs.megaglest.org/Licenses)
So you made a mod. Excellent, but even though you may think you are done, you still have one final step before you can distribute it to everyone: you must choose how it will be licensed. Licensing affects how others will be able to use your mod. Too strict and your mod becomes isolated and usable only for playing, too loose and you may find parts of your mod used in ways that you don't want.
We are going to assume that you wish to have your mod available for free, and that others will be able to use your resources. Glest itself follows these principles, so sharing is the norm around here, and will likely increase the success and popularity of your mod. For this purpose, there are the following main licenses:
CC-BY
Creative Commons Attribution is a license that permits other people to use your work in virtually any way they want, as long as they give you proper credit. This can include your name (e.g. Ringo Starr), your psuedonym (BeatleDrums420), and/or a link to your website (http://beatledrums420.example.org).
Why you might want to use this license: You want everyone to be able to use your work in their own projects, for whatever purpose and whatever kind of project they want, but you want credit to be given where credit is due. If that sounds like you, this is your license. This license is also compatible with nearly every license under the sun (including the GPL), so the content is highly reusable. Also, if the developers of another game use your content, you can always put that on your résumé. ;)
Why you might NOT want to use this license: If you want to pick and choose how people use, modify, or redistribute your work, this is not the license for you.
CC-BY-SA
Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike and Non-commercial sharealike are similar. People can share (copy, distribute and transmit) the work, and remix (adapt) the work. It includes the same attribution terms as CC-By, so you can still include your name, psuedonym, and/or web address.
When someone shares or remixes the work, they must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (in this case, you) (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). If they alter, transform, or build upon this work, they may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. This means that if you make something for a Glest mod and another modder, artist, or developer wants to use it in their own project, you get credit for it and it remains under CC-By-SA.
These limitations can be waived if they get permission from the copyright holder (you), and where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
Why you might want to use this license: Others will be able to use your content in their own projects, and any modifications and/or improvements they make will also be shared back with the community and you (so it encourages even more sharing). This ensures that the content will be used only in projects with Free/Open content, such as Free and Open-Source games, and not in the next Command & Conquer title.
Why you might NOT want to use this license: The downside to CC-By-SA is that it can ONLY be used with other CC-By-SA assets. This is why you may want to consider dual-licensing, or using CC-By instead.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/
CC-BY-NC-SA
Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike and Non-commercial Share-alike have many similarities, but there is a key difference. Non-commercial (NC) content cannot be used in commercial projects.
Why you might want to use this license: You want your work to be distributed for personal/private use, or you yourself want to make money from it while keeping others from competing with you.
Why you might NOT want to use this license: Work under this license is incompatible with most other free licenses (including CC-By-SA and GPL), which makes it tricky to incorporate this work in other projects. Thus, this content is most suited to personal use by players, not distribution in another project.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/
GPL
The GPL, or GNU General Public License is a free license that gives the ability to let others modify your work, and is the most commonly used free license. The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. 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. To protect your rights, the GPL needs to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. 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.
The GPL is not really meant for content, but rather for programs. However, some Free and Open-Source projects use GPL for art assets anyway. Neither the GPL nor any of the CC licenses are exclusive, so in fact you can license a work as both GPL and CC-something (and/or numerous other licenses), allowing the user to use the content under whichever terms are more favorable. For example, dual-licensing a work as CC-By-SA and GPL allows games with CC-By-SA art (like 0AD) and ones with GPL art (like The Battle for Wesnoth) to both use your content, but still keeps it out of the hands of those who are themselves unwilling to share. Bi-winning. :thumbup:
Why you might want to use this license: If you want to allow other games with GPL art to use your content, this is a good choice. However, it is preferable that you also release it under one of the CC licenses as well, to ensure greater compatibility/reusability.
Why you might NOT want to use this license: If you license your content only as GPL, then it will only be usable in other GPL projects, not in anything else. Dual-licensing gets around this.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
CC0 (Public Domain)
If you don't want to have any restrictions at all, and don't mind if others can use your work in any way (which can include uncredited usage in commercial applications), then CC0 (zero) is basically a public domain license.
In contrast to CC’s licenses that allow copyright holders to choose from a range of permissions while retaining their copyright, CC0 empowers yet another choice altogether – the choice to opt out of copyright and database protection, and the exclusive rights automatically granted to creators – the “no rights reserved†alternative to our licenses.
Why you might want to use this license: You want everyone to be able to use your work however they please, and you don't really care whether you get credit or not. Alternatively, if the work is small or not very significant (like a single sound effect), and you don't want other modders, artists, or developers to have to bother crediting you, CC0 can save them the trouble.
Why you might NOT want to use this license: If someone uses your CC0-licensed work in a way that you don't like, there is not much you can do about it. Also, if anyone else's work is included in your work, you MUST have permission from the other author(s) in order to release it into the public domain. This means that if you're using any content from Glest's original assets (e.g. Magitech), you cannot use this license for that work because it doesn't entirely belong to you.
http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
-
Thanks for the info :thumbup:
Any future mods by me will be released CC0
This means I will have to be especially careful about using content for textures (I believe burningwell.org is public domain?) since I want to release my models as totally free.
-
Well before I release MRise v2.0 I think I'll be using CC-BY-SA, it's pretty much what I want my mod to be for now. Maybe in the future if I remodel all those models ripped from games (which I intend to do) I might think about selling it, some of the profit would go to Glest of course and fellow Glest modders would be able to access it for free, but this is a long way away for now and I just want to get the mod finished before anything like that.
-
This is why you may want to consider dual-licensing, or using CC-By instead.
Dual Licensing with what??
Also what would someone have to do waive their cc licensing waived? I assume it must be in writing for legal reasons...
-
As usual I want to warn that its not always simply the choice of the modder which license has to be used. If you use pictures from CGTextures ore even more suspicious ressources you are in serious trouble! You will NOT be allowed to choose a license of your choice, because you are often bound to their often very propreritary licenses! Most of these ressources are only meant for proprietary licenses, NOT for open source projects.
The only way out is to get a permission from the current copyright holder to provide your derived work under your preferred license.
and to make it even more complicated you are not allowed to mix different "free" licenses like GPL/CC-BY-SA/CC-BY-SA-NC in one mod with one license.
-
Where does this thinking that you are not allowed to mix licenses come from?
My understanding is that you are allowed to mix licenses in the same project. You must state explicitly which files are covered by which license, and you typically add a file called LICENSE for this.
I can think of several high-profile open source projects that do precisely this.
-
You can easily say the mod is under CC-BY-SA except, for example, Model A, which is under the GPL. Military uses multiple licenses, for example.
-
I said:
... in one mod with one license.
-
So if i have music thats cc by sa but want my models to be cc by nc sa would i still be able to use music?? Wouldn't making a game using music count as a distribution of the music??
-
yes you can. You just have to specify - say add a LICENSE.TXT file the makes it clear which files are covered by which license, and the text of each license.
-
Thanks for the info :thumbup:
Any future mods by me will be released CC0
This means I will have to be especially careful about using content for textures (I believe burningwell.org is public domain?) since I want to release my models as totally free.
How generous. :thumbup: And yes, everything on burningwell.org is public domain. That makes it much easier than having to track down attribution for dozens of different photographers.
Dual Licensing with what??
Typicall CC-By-SA and GPL, because these two are very commonly used. This dual-license allows content to be used by a lot of different FOSS projects, but keeps it out of the hands of proprietary developers.
Also what would someone have to do waive their cc licensing waived? I assume it must be in writing for legal reasons...
You just need the permission of the author. Having it in writing (or at least some record of it, like an email) would be much safer than just a spoken conversation.
-
yes you can. You just have to specify - say add a LICENSE.TXT file the makes it clear which files are covered by which license, and the text of each license.
I want to believe this is true, but there is something off about being able to do that. How am i really allowed to release my project as CC By NC SA but use some art/music that is CC by SA. If i could do that then whats the point of the SHARE ALIKE part of the license? I'm so confused :confused:
-
yes you can. You just have to specify - say add a LICENSE.TXT file the makes it clear which files are covered by which license, and the text of each license.
I want to believe this is true, but there is something off about being able to do that. How am i really allowed to release my project as CC By NC SA but use some art/music that is CC by SA. If i could do that then whats the point of the SHARE ALIKE part of the license? I'm so confused :confused:
It's share alike because the music is still released under the same license, and other have to do the same.
-
How am i really allowed to release my project as CC By NC SA but use some art/music that is CC by SA. If i could do that then whats the point of the SHARE ALIKE part of the license? I'm so confused :confused:
You can't.
Mods don't have licenses. Each file in a mod has a license.
You can release a mod where parts are NC-SA and others are SA or whatever, and you have to specify which are which. You cannot change the license on any given file unless you are the rights holder.
But there is fundamentally nothing wrong with a mod that has a mix of licenses, but all mods need to explicitly state what license they have - for their parts, as would be necessary in the mixed example.
-
Mods don't have licenses. Each file in a mod has a license.
I had no idea... Maybe this should be mentioned in top post, it sounds as though you need to license the mod itself not the parts within mod. I'm glad we have this topic! Thanks!
-
I was going to sticky this, but I was too slow. :P I think we should remove one of the other threads though...Or rather update it a bit. (The General Modding Overview thread)
-
NC only makes sense if you per se seek to make money off of something, while sharing it with others, without helping your competition. It seems like a lot of artists license as NC because they don't want some big developer grabbing their content and using it to make the next big commercial game. However, it's not like Electronic Arts or Blizzard is going to use your CC-By-SA art in the next Command & Conquer or Somethingcraft anyway, because they wouldn't dare share alike, so the NC clause is only going to hurt other indie FOSS titles, not big corporate giants.
Things won't go so easily. But also cultural chasm involves in these matters.
Actually, I got bewildered when I frequently asked what license terms will I use in my mod in here. Because Creative Commons license is not popular among Japanese amateur game creating/modding scenes.
In japan, Authors simply describe cautions in readme.txt or his own webpages, most likely. The most common cautions used by them are, Do not divert the creations without permission of the author, and for commercial use, Obviously not. It is comparable to CC-BY-NC-SA license. And as long as users keep the compliances, There is no problem. No need for CC. There are unspoken rules.
This is why I licensed my mod CC-BY-NC-SA.
About this agenda, I want to express more precisely (Please keep in mind that, My english is not perfect) so Please allow me to as more fully described below in Japanese.
そんなに簡単な話じゃない。これには文化的な問題が絡んでいる。
実際のところ、私はここで頻繁に自分のMODに対してどのLicenseを使用するのかを聞かれて困惑してしまった。なぜなら、Creative Commons Licenseは日本の同人Game作成やModdingの場面ではあまり使われることは無いからだ。
日本では、作者は大抵の場合、ただReadme.txtや自身のWebpageに注意事項を記載する。こういった注意記載で最も頻繁に目にするのは、作者の許可なく作品やその一部を転載しないこと、商業利用に関しては論外だ。これはCreative CommonsならCC-BY-NC-SA Licenseに相当する。利用者はその記載された作者の注意事項を順守すれば良い。CCなど必要無い。暗黙の了解があるのだ。
これが、私がJapanese Faction ModにCC-BY-NC-SA Licenseを適用した理由だ。
-
There is no problem. No need for CC. There are unspoken rules.
One issue is that creating a custom license makes it easy for there to be unintended loopholes. The CC licenses are created and reviewed by experienced lawyers.
Of course, we do have to note that for most personal work, it's just not a big deal if the license goes wrong.
-
There is no problem. No need for CC. There are unspoken rules.
It becomes a mess if you try to include work from different authors with their own custom rules for reusing their assets. CC makes it more convenient, because you know very quickly whether two works can be combined or not.
-
Best point of CC Licences is … they are translated into so many languages.
To licences in general:
I would say CC-By and Apache 2.0 are for those, who want to raise the reusability of their work.
CC-By-SA and GPL are for those who want to keep as much software and art free as possible.
I would use Apache and GPL just for complex lua code.
There are unspoken rules.
There is no problem. No need for CC. There are unspoken rules.
Not sure if that’s part of the German mentality in general or just my personal:
But I would rather try to reinvent the wheel than building upon material where I have no garantee, that I can publish and own my work. Especially ‘silently tolerating remixing’ like it’s done in some fandoms is something I absolutely can’t understand.
Why should I respect the copyrights and work done by others, if I can’t be sure if I can publish my work at a later point or all my work done was a waste of time?
Maybe you have to be an artist to understand that *mhm
And GPL is *not* a content license!
The GNU GPL *can* be used for general data which is not software, as long as one can determine what the definition of “source code” refers to in the particular case.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
I want to release CC by NC-SA So whats so wrong about NC??
As far as I know it is also not absolutely clear what is ‘comercial usage’ and what is not.
But the examples for this are mostly of an extreme theoretical nature.
-
Well, I got somewhat understanding about the philosophy of Creative Commons Lisences, and will keep using the CC-BY-NC-SA License for my mod, but I still feel uncomfortable to cancel out the NC clause. Again, this issue is related to the manner of japanese local game creating scenes. At least for now, I want to keep away from my mod from commercial use as many japanese game creators do on their free-games. And I believe that none has the right to make an accusation about how licensing other's contents.
-
As the license discussion came up in the "balance pack" thread here ( https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=9660.msg91638#msg91638 ) I want to make clear what the problem is:
Megapack has License CC-BY-SA
Japanese Faction has license CC-BY-SA-NC
SA means that parts of one mod can only be used in other mods if they are released under the same license as the original art had. As these are two different licenses its obviously not possible to mix them legally.
Either the Megapack must be made available under CC-BY-SA-NC or Japanese must be available as CC-BY-SA. I don't think there is another legal way to mix it.
Another examples:
Current East vs Mega package:
Japanese Mod CC-BY-SA-NC
Ming Dynasty: Public Domain
MegaPack: not included just linked
This is ok, because "Public Domain" has nearly no restriction and can by this be converted to CC-BY-SA-NC .
MegaPack: is not included just linked and by this the license does not matter.
=> conclusion "East vs Mega" is CC-BY-SA-NC.
This all reminds me that I need to update all mods in the modcenter with proper license description.
-
This complexity about combinations of licenses issues nearly makes me nuts.
Anyway, I will bear in mind that licenses issues are really sensitive in some countries.
-
Pretty sure that's not correct, Titi. Licensing is not per-mod. You can distribute packages that contain files with different licenses. Heck, MegaGlest does this. The engine is one license and the resources are another. You can do the same with techtrees, making one faction one license and another a different license.
Also of note is the concept of authors giving permission. For example, the creator of some mod package could ask Hagekura for permission to use parts of the mod where a licensing incompatibility may otherwise appear. It would only apply for the guy who asked permission. It's kind of a mess (since people wouldn't be able to derive from that mod package without also asking permission), but it's an option.
There's also the possibility of fair use. It's not really a clear cut topic, so it's not clear how much of a resource can be used under the concept of fair use. Better to avoid it.
Finally, there's a third possibility. Just use the content however you want. It's pretty much a given that the rights owner issues a cease and desist first (I suppose it's possible to open with a lawsuit, but I haven't heard of that happening and that's probably for a good reason). That means "take this down or I'll sue you". It's entirely possible that the content owner will let you continue, or you'll slip under their radar. There's a few mods for commercial games that are in a position where they could be taken down at any time with a C&D, yet haven't been. For example, Pokemon Zeta/Omicron (http://www.reddit.com/r/pokemonzetaomicron) is a fan-made Pokemon game that obviously violates Nintendo's copyrights and trademarks, yet has avoided a C&D, somehow. Given its size and popularity at the time of its development, I would expect that Nintendo knows it exists, and merely chooses to let it exist.
That's not really in the spirit of development here, but it's an option. But it comes at the cost of having to either make changes or stop working entirely if a C&D is issued (I presume you wouldn't be in any position to challenge a C&D, unless you wanted to call a bluff).
-
Pretty sure that's not correct, Titi. Licensing is not per-mod. You can distribute packages that contain files with different licenses. Heck, MegaGlest does this. The engine is one license and the resources are another. You can do the same with techtrees, making one faction one license and another a different license.
Magister is spot on. Licensing is per file. So you just have to have an AUTHORS file or similar explaining the licensing of each file. The faction XML is a wee bit unclear because it would presumably be a derivative of several mods (since you need to have attack/armour types from several factions).
Licensing applies to each work, not each file. The problem is that what constitutes a work is not well-defined in this context. The engine and the resources are clearly different, but individual assets come together to make the gestalt experience. On the other hand, each textured and animated model is its own thing. Analogies with other media don't really apply, so unless there is an actual legal ruling, it's all kinda abstract and theoretical. With that said: "In order for an adaptation to be protected by copyright, most national laws require the creator of the adaptation to add original expression to the pre-existing work." (source (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_is_an_adaptation.3F))
This suggests to me that bundling separate units together to form a faction would not constitute an adaptation and that the SA license would not propagate to the rest of the faction (although GPL would). Thus, if I'm correct, this means that Hagekura's Japanese faction permits itself to be distributed along with Magitech, the MegaPack, or literally anything else, as long as it stays non-commercial (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/NonCommercial_interpretation).
Also, I would argue that a configuration file that simply tells a program how to use an asset does not constitute an expression of creativity that can be copyrighted.
-
This suggests to me that bundling separate units together to form a faction would not constitute an adaptation and that the SA license would not propagate to the rest of the faction (although GPL would). Thus, if I'm correct, this means that Hagekura's Japanese faction permits itself to be distributed along with Magitech, the MegaPack, or literally anything else, as long as it stays non-commercial (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/NonCommercial_interpretation).
Huh?? It doesn't make any sense to me. Aren't you a bit too extreme?
-
I don't get why this is extreme in any way? Shouldn't this be exactly what you had in mind ? Your work stays with your license, others work stays with their license.
But as much I would like to see it this way, I don't think that if you deliver all in one package ( 7z-file ) it will be possible to say, hey, these are different things, just "accidently" delivered together. At least here in germany its a very clear case.
@Omega: I don't know what a "C&D" is to be honest.
Just to give you an idea how worse it is in Germany:
As far as I know here in germany you can even get into trouble without any interaction from the original author. You get a "Abmahnung" form a lawyer who saws that you have any copyright issues.
According to Wikipwdia already 6% of all germans got such a "Abmahnung" yet, these are 4.2 million german Internet users ( see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung#Missbrauch)
An "Abmahnung" means you have to pay round about 1000 Euro and the chances you can defend yourself are very low, because all the courts give right to the other side. In addition you typically have to give a statement that you will not do something like this again. If you do this, you will get punished a lot harder next time you do anything like this. And of course you have to instantly take down everything related to this case.
Of course not all those "Abmahnungen" are for issues like this, you also get them if you share a movie or mp3, but they really take everything they can at the moment to get your money. Especially picture/photo copyright related "Abmahnungen" are very common at the moment. It is somehow a modern gold-rush mood for the lawyers and they have automated bots who "harvest" new cases in the internet ...
If you ask me, germany lives the american copyright dreams with german "Gründlichkeit" going completly over the top at the moment.
As I live in germany and I don't want to be one of the 4.2 millions, you must respect that I don't want to be responsible for hosting anything where I see license touble. And btw, we already try to host everything we can ouside germany to get at least a bit of security.
-
There's also the possibility of fair use. It's not really a clear cut topic, so it's not clear how much of a resource can be used under the concept of fair use. Better to avoid it.
The problem with that is, it depends much on national laws.
In the U.S. you can use something for quotes or parody.
In Germany just for quotes or if it is just a subsidiary part of the whole work.
And I have absolutely no idea what will hapen, if you share it in a world wide scope.
@titi: as far as I can see ‘cease and desist’ and ‘Abmahnung’ are in general the same things. It’s a cheap alternative to a lawsuit.
…
I think Creative Commons licenses or similar licenses are the best way to deal with this in an international scope and to give the users/modders some security.
Oh and the newest generation of -sa licenses can be mixed with similar licenses https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses
-
Also having no legal license on you work, its illegal in some countries.
-
I don't get why this is extreme in any way? Shouldn't this be exactly what you had in mind ? Your work stays with your license, others work stays with their license.
I'm sorry, It's a my foolish reading mistake that I misread his word "permit" to "omit", so I misread his whole context reversely. Really sorry john, I read your comment again now correctly, I have no opposition to your opinion. I want to bury my head in shame.
-
Just to give you an idea how worse it is in Germany...
An "Abmahnung" means you have to pay round about 1000 Euro and the chances you can defend yourself are very low, because all the courts give right to the other side. In addition you typically have to give a statement that you will not do something like this again. If you do this, you will get punished a lot harder next time you do anything like this. And of course you have to instantly take down everything related to this case.
Wow Titi, I didn't realise copyright is so strictly enforced in Germany. I live in the UK and so far the government (to their credit) has resisted the American push to criminalize copyright abuse. I'm by no means a lawyer but I think most copyright in the UK is still treated as a civil rather than criminal issue, which basically means if the copyright breacher has little or no assets its usually worthless chasing them since the copyright holder will be told it is their job to get the money back.
-
@Omega: I don't know what a "C&D" is to be honest.
A "cease and desist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist)" is basically a warning that, if you don't want to be sued, you must cease (stop doing the thing) and desist (don't do it again).
Just to give you an idea how worse it is in Germany:
<snip />
In that case, I can see why you would want to be extra cautious. I guess it might work to think of differently-licensed factions as free DLC, but I imagine this could cause a problem with fragmentation if different players have different mods installed. I haven't been paying enough attention to know how well MG's mod/file system would be able to address these differences.
I'm sorry, It's a my foolish reading mistake that I misread his word "permit" to "omit", so I misread his whole context reversely. Really sorry john, I read your comment again now correctly, I have no opposition to your opinion. I want to bury my head in shame.
Don't worry; even my fellow Americans don't understand me half the time. ;D
-
I'm sorry, It's a my foolish reading mistake that I misread his word "permit" to "omit", so I misread his whole context reversely. Really sorry john, I read your comment again now correctly, I have no opposition to your opinion. I want to bury my head in shame.
Don't worry; even my fellow Americans don't understand me half the time. ;D
Thanks. :) You're tolerant man indeed. :thumbup:
At any rate, these matters about lincense laws always made headaches illiteracy man like me. :'(
I'd rather focus entirely on making my contents more complete than bother about fatwā.
-
If Creative Commons Licenses are an option for you, I find their license choosing tool rather easy to use:
https://creativecommons.org/choose/
(You may already know this...)