Java-Gaming.org    
Featured games (78)
games approved by the League of Dukes
Games in Showcase (429)
Games in Android Showcase (89)
games submitted by our members
Games in WIP (467)
games currently in development
News: Read the Java Gaming Resources, or peek at the official Java tutorials
 
    Home     Help   Search   Login   Register   
Pages: [1] 2
  ignore  |  Print  
  My Game have creative commons Resources ( images/audio) ,Can i still sell it?  (Read 1927 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline Andre Lopes
« Posted 2013-11-23 15:28:59 »

My Game have creative commons Resources ( images/audio) ,Can i still sell it?

Hi Guys, im not understanding this license....
For instance, im interested in this music : http://opengameart.org/content/water-temple

it says this : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

"Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

So i need to distribute my game in same license? Or... it just means the resource? I dont get it...
Offline Danny02
« Reply #1 - Posted 2013-11-23 15:55:01 »

Yes you have to share your game under the same license. This means that you can of course still sell your game, but everybody else can do the same.

You could perhaps write the author and ask if they give you permission to use their work under another license or agreement.
Offline Andre Lopes
« Reply #2 - Posted 2013-11-23 17:17:50 »

I see... What kind of license i can look for, if i want to sell my game?
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline Danny02
« Reply #3 - Posted 2013-11-23 20:47:06 »

It seems that you only want to take and not give, so your only options are public domain and licenses which allow you to do anything like CC without SA.
Offline Andre Lopes
« Reply #4 - Posted 2013-11-23 21:27:22 »

It seems that you only want to take and not give, so your only options are public domain and licenses which allow you to do anything like CC without SA.


Im sorry that it seems that way, i just want to show some people that making games isnt just Fun ... Theres work needed and it does generate money.

Just a matter of , well, show things.

Anyway, alright.. I will see what resources im using.. And i will either make as CC 3.0 or i will change them all.. idk yet. Lets see Tongue
Offline jmguillemette
« Reply #5 - Posted 2013-11-23 22:50:40 »

im not sure thats entirely right...

[link]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/[/link]

based on this the assets you used remain CC3 but you game does not have to be. so you still retain the sole right to sell your game.. but the assets you used are free to be used by others. (even if ripped out your game to do so)




-=Like a post.. give the author a medal!=-
Offline Danny02
« Reply #6 - Posted 2013-11-24 01:43:46 »

So someone from the CC org said:
Quote
The ShareAlike clause is only activated if your use of the work is considered to be a derivative of the original. What is and isn't a derivative can often be hard to determine.

What does and doesn't constitute a derivative work isn't something that CC can answer. It's a legal question that has to do with copyright, and may even vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The only person who could answer it with certainty is a judge in a court of law.

It's not the CC license which is vague, but how copyright law defines a derivative work (adaptation) which is vague. Remember that the CC licenses are just based on copyright law, so the question here is no how the CC licenses define a derivative work, but how copyright law does. If applicable copyright law considers the use to be a derivative, then so does the CC license.

also from the license:
For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image (“synching”) will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.

which should cover video-games
Offline Andre Lopes
« Reply #7 - Posted 2013-11-24 02:42:06 »

I see...
So whats the veredict?

SHould i contact a lawyer or check an specific forum?
Offline opiop65

JGO Kernel


Medals: 130
Projects: 7
Exp: 3 years


Team Alluminum


« Reply #8 - Posted 2013-11-24 03:02:48 »

Just use different resources. Honestly, its not worth the trouble.

Offline Andre Lopes
« Reply #9 - Posted 2013-11-24 03:05:46 »

Most resources of my game are creative commons .... Now thats a problem.

Well, i guess i will have to distribute it accordingly. Seems unfair, since i worked a lot in the code Sad
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline opiop65

JGO Kernel


Medals: 130
Projects: 7
Exp: 3 years


Team Alluminum


« Reply #10 - Posted 2013-11-24 03:09:10 »

Yes, but the music isn't yours. You can't take from other people and not expect to give back a little.

Offline Andre Lopes
« Reply #11 - Posted 2013-11-24 04:12:44 »

I know but its not like i have a company or something...

I know the both sides but... i feel like its impossible then :_) oh well
Offline CodeHead

JGO Coder


Medals: 36


From rags to riches...to rags.


« Reply #12 - Posted 2013-11-24 07:23:00 »

The license applies to the art work, not your code. The license basically covers the case where you want to modify the artwork, or audio. You would be required to share the modified versions of the artwork or audio. Your code is a different matter. It can be looked at as a presentation layer and so long as it is comprised of your original work, you retain the rights to it including the right to distribute its source code or to keep that portion of your game closed.

Arthur: Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?
Ash: Nope. Just me baby...Just me.
Offline Danny02
« Reply #13 - Posted 2013-11-24 10:03:16 »

first of all:

I think it would be the easiest thing for you to just write all the authors and ask if they would license the work as CC-BY to you and if they don't want to agree try to negotiate something like you get x% and max y money after I sell it.

@CodeHead &  jmguillemette

I'm pretty sure that this is not true. The thing is:
Your compiled code is a copyrightable work.
The Assets are works
The game as a hole is a work (assets + work).

It is the same as if you take 10 pics and photoshop them together, the result is your work, but all the copyright of the author of the 10 original works remain. You might say that you only copy the original work and don't change it, but you are integrating it into another work. It doesn't matter for the law how the end result comes to be (video displayed).
And to back up my claim I looked up a court case in germany(remember that always the law of the country of the author counts) which states that the sole transformation of a work to another media type constitutes as a derivative work.only in GER
Offline nsigma
« Reply #14 - Posted 2013-11-24 10:51:51 »

i just want to show some people that making games isnt just Fun ... Theres work needed and it does generate money.

Funnily enough, music and graphics take work too. The artist has decided the "cost" you must pay is to follow the licence. If something you wanted cost hundreds of dollars would you just steal it?

Seriously, I find it pathetic that you value your time and effort more highly than that of others. If the assets are that good, they're worth it. And if they're not, find something else!  Wink


Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia toolkit and live interactive visual editor
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections
Offline Andre Lopes
« Reply #15 - Posted 2013-11-24 20:42:59 »

i just want to show some people that making games isnt just Fun ... Theres work needed and it does generate money.

Funnily enough, music and graphics take work too. The artist has decided the "cost" you must pay is to follow the licence. If something you wanted cost hundreds of dollars would you just steal it?

Seriously, I find it pathetic that you value your time and effort more highly than that of others. If the assets are that good, they're worth it. And if they're not, find something else!  Wink



Seriously, I find it pathetic that you dont understand.

With fun, i dont mean music and graphics.I do know that create music and images are work. But some people that i know doesnt. And i really want to follow this carreer.

Offline CodeHead

JGO Coder


Medals: 36


From rags to riches...to rags.


« Reply #16 - Posted 2013-11-24 21:33:52 »

Before this thread starts turning personal, let me make a reasoned suggestion. Try contacting the original creator, el-corleo. Looking at the comments on that particular piece of audio, they seem pretty flexible with how their work is used. There are even comments between them and a person who used their music in an android game which appears to be closed source.

And to back up my claim I looked up a court case in germany(remember that always the law of the country of the author counts) which states that the sole transformation of a work to another media type constitutes as a derivative work.only in GER

There are many nuances to the conversation that could be discussed ad nauseum with no real hope for a meaningful resolution here so I will put on my "I am not a lawyer hat" and let the issue rest except for the last part. Where is it stated that the original creator, el-corleo, is a citizen of Germany, or are you referring to Andre as the author?

Arthur: Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?
Ash: Nope. Just me baby...Just me.
Offline Danny02
« Reply #17 - Posted 2013-11-24 22:23:57 »

@CodeHead
I don't know under which jurisdiction any of the work OP uses fall. I just wanted to make a general point about this topic. As in a quote from a previous post of mine, the whole discussion comes down to the point where it has to be decided what a derived work is. Others in this thread have argued that the inclusion of an unaltered work in a game, doesn't make the game a derived work. I wanted to show that I at least found one court ruling in some country which I think applies and says the contrary.

edit: as a last point after reading a bit more about CC. In the CC license the two terms Adaption and Collection are defined. The discussion in this thread is about what of the two terms a game should be considered. As the license itself states:
Quote
For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
I think it should be clear.
Offline jmguillemette
« Reply #18 - Posted 2013-11-25 00:49:21 »

lets let someone who already did the research tell us the final results..

I give you all OpenGameArt.org.

and their FAQ about using their content in your closed source games:

What do the licenses mean? I'm a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?

It depends on the license(s) the art is released under. Technicallyall of the art on this site is legal for use in commercial projects -- however, some of the licenses require you to distribute the source code of your entire project for free, and allow others to distribute the source for free as well. Here is a quick overview of the licenses and what they mean for commercial, closed-source developers. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Read the licenses carefully and consult your legal department before including any of this art in non-open-source or commercial software.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
This license requires you to release the source your entire project under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL. If you're trying to sell a game, this is probably something you want to avoid, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
This license requires you to attribute the author of the content in the way that they specify. Provided the author is properly credited, it is generally safe to use this content in a commercial work.

GNU GPL 3
This license, like Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 above, requires you to release your entire project under the same license. Furthermore, it has certain restrictions guaranteeing the user freedom from DRM. If you want to sell a game, you probably don't want to use content that's released under this license, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well.

GNU LGPL 3
This license requires you to make the source code available for that content only. You may use this content in a non-open-source project, provided that you distribute the source of the content as well as any modifications you make to it under the same license. It does not, however, require you to distribute your entire project under the GNU LGPL. It is generally safe for commercial games to use content released under this license, provided they distribute the content and any modifications to it for free.

GNU GPL 2
This license, like Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 above, requires you to release your entire project under the same license. If you want to sell a game, you probably don't want to use content that's released under this license, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well.

GNU LGPL 2
This license requires you to make the source code available for that content only. You may use this content in a non-open-source project, provided that you distribute the source of the content as well as any modifications you make to it under the same license. It does not, however, require you to distribute your entire project under the GNU LGPL. It is generally safe for commercial games to use content released under this license, provided they distribute the content and any modifications to it for free.

Copyright-Only Dedication (Public Domain)
This license is equivalent to the Public Domain. There are therefore no legal concerns with using it, and it is safe to use in any project.
Just to reiterate, these notes are based on my understanding of these licenses, and should be taken with a grain of salt. If you notice anything incorrect here, please contact me.


-=Like a post.. give the author a medal!=-
Offline CodeHead

JGO Coder


Medals: 36


From rags to riches...to rags.


« Reply #19 - Posted 2013-11-25 04:00:43 »

Except that even opengameart.org doesn't make things clear. Did you happen to read this part of the FAQ as well?

I give you mud in the waters from OGA in return.

Quote
Aren't CC-BY and CC-BY-SA incompatible with the GPL?

That depends on what you mean by "compatible". They are incompatible in the sense that you can't take someone else's CC-BY or CC-BY-SA content and slap the GPL on them, and you can't write code licensed under one of those licenses and mingle it with GPLed code. However, for the intent of creating and distributing games, the Free Software Foundation has clarified that the game code and game media are separate entities and do not need to be released under the same license, provided those licenses allow you to copy and redistribute the work for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. Here's what the FSF has to say about this:

Non-functional Data

Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is more of an adornment to the system's software than a part of it. Thus, we don't insist on the free license criteria for non-functional data. It can be included in a free system distribution as long as its license gives you permission to copy and redistribute, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. For example, some game engines released under the GNU GPL have accompanying game information—a fictional world map, game graphics, and so on—released under such a verbatim-distribution license. This kind of data can be part of a free system distribution, even though its license does not qualify as free, because it is non-functional.

Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

What this means for you as a developer is that the game data should be clearly marked as such, along with the licensing information for that data.

It is also worth noting that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is Debian approved.

Disclosure: I copied the "Non-functional Data" clause from the source page provided by OGA due to the fact that the copy on their page appears to have some stray unicode characters polluting the text.

Sounds like the code and the assets can be licensed separately to me and there is no indication that this only applies when the engine is licensed under the GPL. Also note that the CC page states specifically that their licences are not designed for software so saying that one must put their software under a license that wasn't designed for it is a bit of a stretch. Again, the easiest approach in this situation is probably to just ask the original creator.

Arthur: Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?
Ash: Nope. Just me baby...Just me.
Offline nsigma
« Reply #20 - Posted 2013-11-25 12:55:27 »

Except that even opengameart.org doesn't make things clear.

No kidding!   Grin

Quote
the Free Software Foundation has clarified that the game code and game media are separate entities and do not need to be released under the same license, provided those licenses allow you to copy and redistribute the work for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.

That bit's important, but also the problem in reverse.  That's about what assets you can distribute with GPL code, and note that this basically amounts to making sure that the assets can always be distributed with the code.

The OP's question is however the opposite.  He's not looking to distribute GPL code, he's looking to distribute CC-BY-SA assets.  Therefore the question is what code license satisfies the CC-BY-SA conditions?

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
This license requires you to release the source your entire project under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL.

That statement is not backed up by the license at all.  CC licenses are not designed for code, and specifically don't make a distinction between source and compiled code.  Therefore, you can almost certainly distribute only the compiled code.  However, you would also need to satisfy the share-alike portion of the license, which means that anyone you distribute the game to would be allowed to distribute it further and/or decompile and modify it, as long as they retained attribution and shared it in a like manner.

The OP's question is fundamentally flawed.

Can you sell CC-BY-SA (or GPL) projects? Yes.
Can you stop other people selling or giving away your CC-BY-SA (or GPL) projects? No.

IANAL - blah blah blah.

I agree with the point made by a number of people in this thread.  Respect the copyright holder, don't try and find loopholes around their wishes, and if in doubt, ask them.  There's a good chance they'll be fine with it!  Wink

Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia toolkit and live interactive visual editor
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections
Offline Andre Lopes
« Reply #21 - Posted 2013-11-25 15:06:41 »

Guys, im reading this, and its becoming clear to me.Thanks!

Still theres a question.
If my game have a folder called resources and i made that folder avaiable to change.. And distribute it. And the source code, i would obfuscate and sell it and make with another license......
Is that what i should do?
Offline CodeHead

JGO Coder


Medals: 36


From rags to riches...to rags.


« Reply #22 - Posted 2013-11-25 16:13:35 »

That bit's important, but also the problem in reverse.  That's about what assets you can distribute with GPL code, and note that this basically amounts to making sure that the assets can always be distributed with the code.

The organizations behind CC and GPL have no inherent exclusivity agreement that I'm aware of. The point to be taken away from the statement is more that the assets and code can be under separate licences thereby allowing the code to remain closed source while letting the CC's resources remain open and available to anyone. In other words you're only charging people for your game engine and assets that you have exclusive rights to and giving the CC's assets away for free. I believe ID's licensing used to work that way when they released the source code except that they retained rights to the assets and gave the technology away for free.

The OP's question is however the opposite.  He's not looking to distribute GPL code, he's looking to distribute CC-BY-SA assets.  Therefore the question is what code license satisfies the CC-BY-SA conditions?

It doesn't matter what license he chooses for his engine. It's the fact that there is a separation between code and assets. The engine license doesn't have to satisfy the same requirements as the asset license. It only matters that the asset license is respected by a)attribution, and b)share and share alike.

  However, you would also need to satisfy the share-alike portion of the license, which means that anyone you distribute the game to would be allowed to distribute it further and/or decompile and modify it, as long as they retained attribution and shared it in a like manner.

Given the dual licensing statements, where are you getting that the asset licensing would suddenly supersede any engine licensing?

@Andre

Despite the conversation that is occurring here between non lawyers, I have to ask what is your aversion to contacting the original creator? The advice given here really has little bearing if or when you find yourself with a copyright violation notice. No judge is going to take a defense of "some guys on a message board said I should do this" seriously. The worse that can happen is they say no and you have to find another audio track for your game. Judging from their comments on OGA, I'd tend to think they would say yes, and who knows, at the end of the day you may have a new contact out in the world who could help you with future projects. If you care about your game, then act like a professional, verify that the artist is agreeable to your use, and respect whatever answer they give you.

Arthur: Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?
Ash: Nope. Just me baby...Just me.
Offline nsigma
« Reply #23 - Posted 2013-11-25 19:21:33 »

The point to be taken away from the statement is more that the assets and code can be under separate licences thereby allowing the code to remain closed source while letting the CC's resources remain open and available to anyone.

How the hell you get to that conclusion from that statement from GNU about free software I have no idea?!  It specifically talks about assets being shipped with a free game engine not having to be under the same license, as long as they are made available in a way that allows free copying and distribution.  The ID software argument is also bogus in that they owned the copyright on all the material, so could do whatever they wanted.

This argument has nothing to do with GNU software licenses, it is to do with CC asset licenses.  Just because GNU see a (limited) separation between code and assets, do not assume it works in reverse.  Please refer me to any link that suggests that the conditions of the CC-BY-SA asset license do not cover all derivative work, including the compiled code, as per my previous post.

If my game have a folder called resources and i made that folder avaiable to change.. And distribute it. And the source code, i would obfuscate and sell it and make with another license......
Is that what i should do?

No, if you think that putting them as two separate folders stops you from having to follow the license.  Just having things split up doesn't take away your need to follow the license, particularly if your code only works with those assets.  In that case it would be hard to justify that they're distinct works.  Show some respect to the original author's wishes, stop trying to fudge some dubious legal workaround, and ask whether they're happy with what you want to do .. it'd be quicker than arguing on this thread, unless they've already said no, in which case, tough!  Wink

Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia toolkit and live interactive visual editor
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections
Offline Andre Lopes
« Reply #24 - Posted 2013-11-25 19:42:32 »

Sure i will speak with each one of them, but, i thought it would be good to ask devs who already went through this.

But thanks Tongue
Offline CodeHead

JGO Coder


Medals: 36


From rags to riches...to rags.


« Reply #25 - Posted 2013-11-25 21:41:49 »

How the hell you get to that conclusion from that statement from GNU about free software I have no idea?!  

As I said earlier, there is no agreement that I'm aware of between the organizations behind CC and the GPL that says you can only consider data and application as two separate entities as long as you're using a GPL license on the software or as long as the software is given away for free. Two separate and distinct entities means that two separate and distinct licenses can be applied. One which applies to the engine written by party a, and a second which applies to assets generated by party (or parties) b.

There's nothing in that scenario which prevents a programmer from distributing their code under their own closed source terms for profit, and still providing access to the attributed CC assets and any modifications made to them to the public at large without requiring purchase of the game itself, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the CC license.

It specifically talks about assets being shipped with a free game engine not having to be under the same license, as long as they are made available in a way that allows free copying and distribution.

The requirement that the software be "free" isn't by requirement of the CC. They're speaking of the terms that can be applied to a distribution for it to still qualify as a "free system" to the FSF.

The ID software argument is also bogus in that they owned the copyright on all the material, so could do whatever they wanted.

You miss the point that the source and assets live under different licenses at that point no matter if ID owns it all or not, demonstrating that the two are separate entities, not a monolithic whole.

Just because GNU see a (limited) separation between code and assets

It's not a limited separation, it's a complete separation.

Please refer me to any link that suggests that the conditions of the CC-BY-SA asset license do not cover all derivative work, including the compiled code, as per my previous post.

Can you show me anywhere that CC claims their licenses apply whatsoever to code that use the assets as opposed to the assets themselves?

I can point out the below statement from their FAQ:
Quote
Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?
We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software. Furthermore, our licenses are not compatible with the GPL, the most frequently used free software license.

If the license doesn't mention source or object code, how then do you arrive at the conclusion that it suddenly extends to it?

Arthur: Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?
Ash: Nope. Just me baby...Just me.
Offline nsigma
« Reply #26 - Posted 2013-11-25 22:34:35 »

You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

As I said earlier, there is no agreement that I'm aware of between the organizations behind CC and the GPL that says you can only consider data and application as two separate entities as long as you're using a GPL license on the software or as long as the software is given away for free.

There is nothing that says you can treat them as completely separate entities.

The requirement that the software be "free" isn't by requirement of the CC.

I said that earlier!

You miss the point that the source and assets live under different licenses at that point no matter if ID owns it all or not, demonstrating that the two are separate entities, not a monolithic whole.

That doesn't support that position at all because as the copyright holder I could release my own work under multiple licenses.  The copyright holder is not bound by any restrictions in the license, just the people the work is distributed to.

It's not a limited separation, it's a complete separation.

Completely disagree, but I guess I'm not going to convince you!  Grin  At some point maybe you'll find a link that actually supports that position.

Can you show me anywhere that CC claims their licenses apply whatsoever to code that use the assets as opposed to the assets themselves?

The CC code applies to the derivative work - you have yet to point to anything that proves that the code is not part of that derivative work.

If the license doesn't mention source or object code, how then do you arrive at the conclusion that it suddenly extends to it?

Again, you're repeating things I've said to try and back up your own argument.  Software licenses specifically mention the distinction between source and object code because without them they don't (easily) allow modification of compiled code.  CC licenses don't, which means the share-alike applies to the distributed bundle as a whole.  In this case, that means the compiled object code.

Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia toolkit and live interactive visual editor
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections
Offline Danny02
« Reply #27 - Posted 2013-11-25 23:33:01 »

I don't think I can add anything to what I or nsigma already said without repeating myself. So to conclude:
A game is a copyrightable work, so it is a derivative work of all other works it uses. The law doesn't care how you implement this(loading from a different folder whatever).
Offline CodeHead

JGO Coder


Medals: 36


From rags to riches...to rags.


« Reply #28 - Posted 2013-11-25 23:49:31 »

There is nothing that says you can treat them as completely separate entities.

Except for precedent of organizations like the FSF, ID, and others doing just that. For what it's worth, there are discussions on OGA among the artists about this exact subject, and the consensus there seems to be that you do not have to open source the code. If you follow along to the "reasoning" thread mentioned, you'll note that they cite this from the license:

Quote
"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.

I said that earlier!

You said:
Quote
This argument has nothing to do with GNU software licenses, it is to do with CC asset licenses.

My point is that it's not required by the CC license either so you're drawing the "must open source" conclusion based on an incorrect assumption.

Completely disagree, but I guess I'm not going to convince you!  Grin  At some point maybe you'll find a link that actually supports that position.

See the earlier link. Asset is to game engine what data set is to database engine. Neither are reliant on the other to serve their purpose. and the fact that they can work together doesn't make them a single unified entity any more than the fact that I work together with people in my office makes us one being.

The CC code applies to the derivative work - you have yet to point to anything that proves that the code is not part of that derivative work.

Again the engine and assets can function independently of each other. What exactly has the code derived from the work. It would have been functionally the same if another asset was substituted in place of the CC asset and the CC asset would have functioned the same way in another engine. It's like saying a movie that had a coke can in the background of a b-roll scene was derivative of Coca~Cola.

Again, you're repeating things I've said to try and back up your own argument.  Software licenses specifically mention the distinction between source and object code because without them they don't (easily) allow modification of compiled code.  CC licenses don't, which means the share-alike applies to the distributed bundle as a whole.  In this case, that means the compiled object code.

Sadly, no. You're trying to extend rights not claimed by a license to that license. The fact that CC doesn't address software doesn't mean that it automatically applies to software, it means that CC is not a software license and doesn't dictate the terms of the source code. CC is pretty specific as to what it addresses, so I don't see this as an oversight on their part.

Arthur: Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?
Ash: Nope. Just me baby...Just me.
Offline Danny02
« Reply #29 - Posted 2013-11-26 00:49:57 »

CodeHead, nobody is talking about open-source, this discussion is about copyright. Nobody cares about the source-code of the game, it is all about the end product(the compiled game).

It's like saying a movie that had a coke can in the background of a b-roll scene was derivative of Coca~Cola.

Yes this is actually the case and on top of that you would probably also infringe on some brand laws. There are of course always some copyright barriers like fair-use, but this doesn't change anything of the fact that it is an infringement in the first place.

And yes you can call this crazy and unthinkable, but this is the world of copyright we are living in.
Pages: [1] 2
  ignore  |  Print  
 
 

 

Add your game by posting it in the WIP section,
or publish it in Showcase.

The first screenshot will be displayed as a thumbnail.

xsi3rr4x (81 views)
2014-04-15 18:08:23

BurntPizza (73 views)
2014-04-15 03:46:01

UprightPath (84 views)
2014-04-14 17:39:50

UprightPath (67 views)
2014-04-14 17:35:47

Porlus (84 views)
2014-04-14 15:48:38

tom_mai78101 (107 views)
2014-04-10 04:04:31

BurntPizza (167 views)
2014-04-08 23:06:04

tom_mai78101 (263 views)
2014-04-05 13:34:39

trollwarrior1 (214 views)
2014-04-04 12:06:45

CJLetsGame (223 views)
2014-04-01 02:16:10
List of Learning Resources
by SHC
2014-04-18 03:17:39

List of Learning Resources
by Longarmx
2014-04-08 03:14:44

Good Examples
by matheus23
2014-04-05 13:51:37

Good Examples
by Grunnt
2014-04-03 15:48:46

Good Examples
by Grunnt
2014-04-03 15:48:37

Good Examples
by matheus23
2014-04-01 18:40:51

Good Examples
by matheus23
2014-04-01 18:40:34

Anonymous/Local/Inner class gotchas
by Roquen
2014-03-11 15:22:30
java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites, and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily gaming and game production oriented community. inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the company managing the website of java‑gaming.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Managed by Enhanced Four Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!