That's just so wrong! OT - love to see you try and use that excuse in a GPL violation case.
And what would the basis be for a GPL violation be in your scenario?
I'm not suggesting that you can license something as GPL and not release the source with the binaries. The reason GPL was brought up at all was in reference to the code existing under a diferent license than the resources and the implication that brings of the two being distinct and separate entities and the possibility that code can exist under a license that is closed source while still respecting the conditions of the license that accompanies the assets.
That seriously depends on what jurisdiction you're under, for private use at least. It's not actually relevant to my argument ...
Granted, but for the purposes of this discussion, lets limit it to jurisdictions which do recognize the "rights of code protection" since CC is only as binding as the local copyright laws it's backed by. It's still a pretty wide swath of nations. I'm also of the opinion that private use is a different matter as it has causes no real detriment to the licensing party when done for educational purposes.
Aside from the obvious failure in that analogy that data sets are often not subject to copyright due to lack of creativity (facts cannot be copyrighted).
Not copyrighted, but they can carry a property right which is very similar: Sui Generis Database Rights
When you think of what a game engine really is, the analogy really isn't that far off though depending on how the engine is structured I could see a valid point of disagreement with it.
It's generally down to where the derivative / adaptation line is drawn between code and data.
And I think this is where the current sticking point is between our point of views.
If the code is only designed to work with the assets, ie. has hard links to the assets, then the whole is probably covered, particularly if the code creatively manipulates the assets.
I agree with that. If the code only works with a specific data set, then you've established a dependancy and thus shown the engine to be a derivative work.
If you have a generic game engine, that can work with any assets / scripts, then it is possible that the CC license only covers all the specific assets and scripts that make that specific game work.
Which was my larger point. It also fits with the idea of the CC assets being a collection which (in the legal language) is defined by CC as:
“...the Work in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other separate and independent works, assembled into a collective whole".
This opens up interesting questions such as would an in game effect that didn't modify the original file make the game count as a derivative work if the effect was a generic effect that could apply to anything? For example, I apply a fade in/fade out to a screen that displays CC image as part of the intro to a game. Does that count as a derivative work? At what point does and doesn't de minimus
apply. I would imagine that many lawyers have become rich arguing over the varied nuances involved.
This is all a seemingly grey area, and one that the CC people seem to be looking to elucidate better.
Indeed. Due to the complexities of copyright/copyleft in general, I have a feeling that clarity will continue to be elusive.
Good conversation BTW.