@chaosesqueteam: Wow. I thought maybe you were paraphrasing Samual's reply, but that was his actual verbatim response on the Xonotic bug tracker.
What a dick.
Keep at it, and don't let one egomaniacal douchebag get to you - you've got most of the pieces here, and just need to figure out how to put them together. Nobody starts out as a prodigy, and I'd take a hard-working mid-level programmer with a good attitude over a 'genius' who drives away enthusiastic contributors any day of the week.
Even that is muddled by the How to Choose a License section of their own site, which also states very clearly that you CAN apply it to "graphics, font, and geographic data", so long as it "is copyrightable and has a clear preferred form for modification" (opening the can of worms I mentioned earlier). There is room for discussion, so long as GNU doesn't even have a clear consensus on their own site.
**Edit: For clarity, I absolutely agree with you that GPL'd code does not affect the licensing of other assets in the project. My quibble is only over whether art can/should be released under a GPL license on its own, which has long been a fuzzy topic.
**Moar edit: ..which you have addressed already. Disregard this entire comment, as I entirely missed your point (which I now see and agree with completely).
"But who has time to keep up with all this discussion and documentation, right?"
Who indeed?
Chris Webber's article on the CC Wiki does shed some light on the discussion, pretty much the same amount of light as it did when I linked to it last year (in the exact comment I linked to above). Yet, the debate rages on.
More to the point, by my estimation BartK himself has had several changes of opinion on CC-By-SA:
- When he wrote the original FAQ, he was convinced that CC-By-SA covers code/binaries.
- Sometime before this discussion, he became convinced once again that CC-By-SA DOES cover code/binaries.
- As of reading Webber's article, he is now again convinced that CC-By-SA does NOT cover code/binaries.
I'm not faulting BartK for this - nobody here has put more thought into open asset licensing than he has, and he revises his stance when new facts come to light to ensure that his users have the most accurate information possible. Again, this points to the fact that CC as an organization desperately needs to clarify the meaning of their legal terms - not just in a post on their wiki, but as I stated above, IN THE LEGAL TEXT OF THE LICENSE.
Regarding GPL and its application to art, that's a whole other can of worms - prepare to endlessy argue about the meaning of "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". I won't debate it here, because any point I could make on the subject has been made by countless others before - Google will point you to a thousand debates on the subject.
But who has time to keep up with all this discussion and documentation, right?
Seriously, if Creative Commons would just officially clarify this stuff in the license text once and for all, we wouldn't need to endlessly speculate about it. Until then, I'm personally sticking with CC0 and CC-By.
@Varkalandar: I was being ironic - it already happened, but that was a completely different situation (it's a trademark on part of the name of their game, not copyright over simple terms in the game). You're absolutely right that these gemstone descriptions are far too common/broad to be copyrightable, and should be completely safe to use.
I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to point out that King.com is the devil. :)
Well there is this oddity I've run across with iOS (and it stuck around after I migrated to a newer iPhone/iOS version). Not really that major, but it makes site navigation really annoying with iCrap - clicking on links/buttons in Content pages makes OGA go into Rave Mode instead of actually opening the link about half the time, unless I select 'Open in New Tab' (or sometimes, turn my phone sideways to force an orientation/layout change). Otherwise, I've never had an issue with any other browser - works perfectly in literally everything else, so I usually just browse from my desktop or Android these days.
Of course, considering I've never seen anyone else report it, I'm still open to the possibility that I'm either insane or doing it wrong.
Any way to do it creatively on the back end with mod_perl? I'd think you could do something like this example, where you create a custom perl script to update the database, and then reference it with PerlLogHandler inside a Files or FilesMatch directive so it's only invoked for image files. No redirection or funky renaming on the browser side, and you avoid any overhead you may incur from streaming the download through PHP.
Missed a spot? "Creative Commons does not authorize the use by either party of the term "OpenGameArt.org" or any related trademark or logo of OpenGameArt.org without the prior written consent of OpenGameArt.org.."
@chaosesqueteam: Wow. I thought maybe you were paraphrasing Samual's reply, but that was his actual verbatim response on the Xonotic bug tracker.
What a dick.
Keep at it, and don't let one egomaniacal douchebag get to you - you've got most of the pieces here, and just need to figure out how to put them together. Nobody starts out as a prodigy, and I'd take a hard-working mid-level programmer with a good attitude over a 'genius' who drives away enthusiastic contributors any day of the week.
@William.Thompsonj:
Even that is muddled by the How to Choose a License section of their own site, which also states very clearly that you CAN apply it to "graphics, font, and geographic data", so long as it "is copyrightable and has a clear preferred form for modification" (opening the can of worms I mentioned earlier). There is room for discussion, so long as GNU doesn't even have a clear consensus on their own site.
**Edit: For clarity, I absolutely agree with you that GPL'd code does not affect the licensing of other assets in the project. My quibble is only over whether art can/should be released under a GPL license on its own, which has long been a fuzzy topic.
**Moar edit: ..which you have addressed already. Disregard this entire comment, as I entirely missed your point (which I now see and agree with completely).
@Blender:
"But who has time to keep up with all this discussion and documentation, right?"
Who indeed?
Chris Webber's article on the CC Wiki does shed some light on the discussion, pretty much the same amount of light as it did when I linked to it last year (in the exact comment I linked to above). Yet, the debate rages on.
More to the point, by my estimation BartK himself has had several changes of opinion on CC-By-SA:
- When he wrote the original FAQ, he was convinced that CC-By-SA covers code/binaries.
- When he wrote this quite insightful piece on FreeGamer, he was convinced that CC-By-SA does NOT cover code/binaries. See also this discussion on the debian-legal mailing list, where he also advocates for an art license which covers entire projects (because as he stated, there wasn't one yet which does).
- Sometime before this discussion, he became convinced once again that CC-By-SA DOES cover code/binaries.
- As of reading Webber's article, he is now again convinced that CC-By-SA does NOT cover code/binaries.
I'm not faulting BartK for this - nobody here has put more thought into open asset licensing than he has, and he revises his stance when new facts come to light to ensure that his users have the most accurate information possible. Again, this points to the fact that CC as an organization desperately needs to clarify the meaning of their legal terms - not just in a post on their wiki, but as I stated above, IN THE LEGAL TEXT OF THE LICENSE.
Regarding GPL and its application to art, that's a whole other can of worms - prepare to endlessy argue about the meaning of "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". I won't debate it here, because any point I could make on the subject has been made by countless others before - Google will point you to a thousand debates on the subject.
But who has time to keep up with all this discussion and documentation, right?
I love the annual CC-By-SA discussion. Same time next year, then?
Seriously, if Creative Commons would just officially clarify this stuff in the license text once and for all, we wouldn't need to endlessly speculate about it. Until then, I'm personally sticking with CC0 and CC-By.
@Varkalandar: I was being ironic - it already happened, but that was a completely different situation (it's a trademark on part of the name of their game, not copyright over simple terms in the game). You're absolutely right that these gemstone descriptions are far too common/broad to be copyrightable, and should be completely safe to use.
I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to point out that King.com is the devil. :)
Would 'rough' and 'polished' fit in the hierarchy anywhere?
Regarding copyright over those phrases, that'd be about as silly as someone being able to trademark the word 'candy'. :p
@bart: The irony of that ad campaign is overwhelming, considering the anti-establishment roots of the phrase.
Well there is this oddity I've run across with iOS (and it stuck around after I migrated to a newer iPhone/iOS version). Not really that major, but it makes site navigation really annoying with iCrap - clicking on links/buttons in Content pages makes OGA go into Rave Mode instead of actually opening the link about half the time, unless I select 'Open in New Tab' (or sometimes, turn my phone sideways to force an orientation/layout change). Otherwise, I've never had an issue with any other browser - works perfectly in literally everything else, so I usually just browse from my desktop or Android these days.
Of course, considering I've never seen anyone else report it, I'm still open to the possibility that I'm either insane or doing it wrong.
Any way to do it creatively on the back end with mod_perl? I'd think you could do something like this example, where you create a custom perl script to update the database, and then reference it with PerlLogHandler inside a Files or FilesMatch directive so it's only invoked for image files. No redirection or funky renaming on the browser side, and you avoid any overhead you may incur from streaming the download through PHP.
Missed a spot? "Creative Commons does not authorize the use by either party of the term "OpenGameArt.org" or any related trademark or logo of OpenGameArt.org without the prior written consent of OpenGameArt.org.."
Pages