Licensing your mod

[titi]

I said:

... in one mod with one license.

[Ishmaru]

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??

[will]

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.

[John.d.h]

Thanks for the info   

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. 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.

[Ishmaru]

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 

[Omega]

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 

It's share alike because the music is still released under the same license, and other have to do the same.

[will]

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 

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.

[Ishmaru]

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!

[ultifd]

I was going to sticky this, but I was too slow. I think we should remove one of the other threads though...Or rather update it a bit. (The General Modding Overview thread)

[Hagekura]

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。

[Omega]

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.

[John.d.h]

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.

[Baŝto]

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.

[Hagekura]

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.

[titi]

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.

[Hagekura]

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.

[Omega]

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 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).

[John.d.h]

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)

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.

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.

[Hagekura]

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.

Huh?? It doesn't make any sense to me. Aren't you a bit too extreme?

[titi]

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.

[Baŝto]

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

[kagu]

Also having no legal license on you work, its illegal in some countries.

[Hagekura]

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.

[wciow]

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.

[John.d.h]

@Omega: I don't know what a "C&D" is to be honest.

A "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.