[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Scope of Creative Commons ShareAlike licensing for game assets

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:53:30AM +0100, beuc@debian.org wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:55:40AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils@dieweltistgarnichtso.net> writes:
> > > Developers often point to the music they used for the reason behind
> > > that and claim that the scope of the Creative Commons ShareAlike
> > > licensing requires that code must also be licensed CC BY-NC-SA, thus
> > > definitely non-free according to DFSG and FSF criteria.
> > 
> > This would be a question of whether one (part of the) work constitutes a
> > “derived work” of the prior one. If a jurisdiction would rule that the
> > answer is affirmative, then yes, the derived work must comply with the
> > license conditions of the prior work.
> Alternatively, you can point out how many GPL'd games are using CC
> BY-SA music, while the licenses are incompatible, and the music was
> composed independently of the project:

Yes, and aside from that, you can suggest them to dual-license their
code.  If the GPL (or whatever free license they choose) is incompatible
with the art and can therefore not be used (which I don't believe to be
true), it still allows you to get rid of the problematic art and use the
GPL license anyway.

In other words, if they are worried about their code becoming
non-distributable if they don't license it under a specific license,
suggest that instead of _changing_ the license, they can _add_ a
license.  So it's CC-BY-SA-NC just to be sure, but also GPL for the
parts that allow it.

> SunRider is describing themselves as "a 100% free game which is open
> source, DRM-free, and free to modify and use for all personal and
> non-commercial purposes" (http://sunrider-vn.com/main/donate/) so even
> if their repo says "NC" (https://github.com/vaendryl/Sunrider) I
> believe they are good-faith'd.

Eh, no...  "For all personal and non-commercial purposes" sounds like
they really intend to be non-free (in the non-commercial sense).  It is
possible that they didn't apply that restriction, but merely accepted it
for parts of the artwork.  If so, they might be open to dual-licensing.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: