I have put all of the Ardentryst python source files under the GNU GPLv3 license. That means people are free to edit, distribute, and modify the code, and also to redistribute their modified version of it. It also means I receive credit for whatever of mine is used.

All of the game media-- graphics, music and sounds are under the Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution 2.5 Australia License.

You are free to copy, distribute, display, perform and remix these works
for commercial and non-commercial use, as long as you credit me, basically.

I plan to release the game for beta testing here VERY shortly, in fact today or tomorrow is looking good. I'll send around the usual email when I do.

Thanks for the support!

That's very generous of you (although version 3 of the license would be better, as there seem to be problems with v2.5: http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report )

You told me you used freesound.org as a sound resource. This would mean that you have to attribute each of the sound's authors. (see license description http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ )

It unfortunately also does mean that you probably can't re-license the sounds under CC-BY, as the sampling+ license discriminates against use of the sounds in commercials. (Which is not allowed to do under CC-BY terms.


Also, please find out the font authors and licenses.

For example the avl.tff and ARR.tff fonts seem to be http://inde-graphics.deviantart.com/art/advent-font-57338302 which does not allow commercial use.

All this is important for open source operating system distributions to be able to include ardentryst in their repositories.

Okay, I'll have a look into the source of some of the other files... I'm kinda new to this, so all the help is greatly appreciated!

What do I need to do to allow the sounds used from freesound to be all good (distrubuted freely?)

I'm afraid you will have to ask the sounds' authors for permission to re-distribute/use the sounds under whatever license you choose (Again, 3.0 I recommend)

PS: Alternatively, use the CC-Sampling-Plus license for the sounds that use freesound.org resources. This would unfortunately make Ardentryst not able to get into Debian's repository (and other operating systems as well)

In any of the cases, you have to write down and link to the authors of all sounds used.

Okay, I will see if I can get into contact with the sound authors. I am trying to get a release out the door soon, and I heard 3.0 won't be ready until August or later.

So I will be asking them permission for me to redistribute mash-ups of their samples (with others) under my CC license of choice (which I will specify)?

Thanks for all the help.


EDIT: I have contacted all the sound authors of the samples that I have used in my game. The music was made with free software with PD instruments. I am now only using two fonts, FreeSans and FreeSerif. To be honest, they look pretty good. They are under GPLv3 which is good. All the graphics is made solely by me (with the help of drawings by friends)

I have go the go-ahead from 6 sound authors at the moment (not too long after sending the request out.)

Is there anything else I will need to qualify for Debian main repo?

You mean the Australian version of cc by 3.0?

Well, I would recommend the international one: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

I'm sure that would be all. Just include an AUTHORS.txt (or something like that) which lists the authors of media used

Btw: it doesn't matter if the music/graphics were created with free software or not

Oh, I see.. It's a little troublesome to chase everyone up again, what are the benefits?

Well... generally speaking there are some criteria for "how Free" a project is. The thresholds for these are set differently for different sites/repositories/whatever. Typically you want to get as high on that scale as you can, so that you get in most of them with banners flying (or at all!).

On the other hand, the hodgepodge of license compatibilities, relations and levels of Freeness various authors give away means that you can be better off (more/better content) with using less Free things, too. So there is also a factor working for the "dark side"

Striking balance which you desire between the two is something you must decide yourself.

Generally though the CC licenses don't cut it except for the -SA, since the four freedoms ([1][2]) are a must for being considered Free and these don't grant them (iirc). And in many places this is exactly what you need to get in.

There might also be a difference between what you claim (think?) about the project and what is really true, from a lawyer's viewpoint. You are registered on sourceforge - while as you now (suddenly?) see, the real status of eg. fonts is dubious. Don't think it is something horrible, just try to fix things when you know about them... bad name sticks badly :(

There is also compatibility of licenses and such niceties, but let's not go there unless needed...

Bottom line, welcome to the wonderful world of licensing, which will make you weep more often than you might think :-/

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

Thanks for all that info. As you said with the four freedoms:
With the license that I have chosen (not set in stone) the CC2.5 Attribution,

# run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
AFAICT you are allowed to use the art for anything as long as credit is given

If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means

# study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)
corresponds with CC2.5s
"You are free to Remix — to adapt the work" (I believe?)
and
# redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)
to "You are free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work"

# improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)

Again with "You are free to Remix — to adapt the work"

Is my understanding wrong?
I do understand that the "human-readable" version isn't really significant but is a summary of the license (which I have skimmed over) and that this is my first time dealing with the serious side of free software.

Sorry, looking at what the FSF says about cc licenses [3], it seems I was wrong and you are right

Given that FSF says about itself that it can decide what is ethical enough to qualify as Free and what is not, and everyone goes with that, there should not be problems.

But you might want qubodup to comment on this further. As a kind of "reporter" for the freegamer blog he has far more experience than me.

[3] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ccby

Okay, yep. I hope qubodup responds quickly!

P.S. I hope you like the new hyperlinks!

The CC 2.5 licenses apparently is not debian (large linux distro) compatible. The problems listed are
* A creator could request that downstream distributors remove all references to him or herself.
* Requirements for attribution were too vague.
* The anti-DRM clause was too broad.
* The restrictions on use of the trademark "Creative Commons" were too strict.[4]

Being compatible with debian's guidelines will allow a packager to include the game in the repository of debian, ubuntu, fedora and gentoo (these are the ones which I know of that care about the licenses of their packages much AFAIK)

That's pretty much it - the benefit for _you_ is that it will be easier to distribute ardentryst via linux distros

[4]http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report

Oh yep. I read that (sort of.) That stuff rings a bell. So will these problems disappear if I use CC3.0 on my media? (i.e. will I be able to include the game in repos where they really care about the freeness as stated above?)

I have no troubles seeking the sound authors for their sound files to be put under 3.0, as long as it's the best thing to do for it
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-6c657384a8f1ddd803438e69f176f8d0c479ab9c

Reading here states that the CC3.0 is considered to be in accordance with the DFSG but probably isn't by many standards a definitive answer... Are there packages in those repos that use CC3.0? Will they reject my project for using CC?

One hundred thanks for your effort since you probably have a ton of other, more important things, to be doing

ahsdjfk sorry for forgetting about this thread for a week.

I can't say for sure, but since debian-guys were involved in work on the 3.0 versions of the cc licenses, it would make sense that they are compliant.

Haha, okay. Thanks. I've got to get around to that some time. Organisation and stuff. Woo!

Hey again, AVRS 'complained' about the license being "CC" .

The 'problem' is that the organization CC (Creative COmmons) is the publisher of multiple licenses: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/



The "Attribution" and "Attribution-ShareAlike" licenses are accepted by Debian and so on, so perhaps you should clarify whether or not you use one of them and which one

To figure out what they mean, read their short descriptions which can be reached from the link above.

I think I planned to use Attribution Share Alike. So 'International' counts as a jurisdiction?

? -> http://creativecommons.org/international/

I don't know. I always use and recommend the 'unported' licenses like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Thanks, that looks exactly what I want. I will fix a few things (editing license text and stuff..) and make it more official for the next release.

As a law student and decade-long FOSS enthusiast, I'd say that the SA clause in the CC licenses is perhaps the most troublesome if you try to implement the work somewhere, as then the derivative work should be under the same CC-*-SA license. You can imagine that as GPL is not the most suited license for artwork, CC is not the most suited license for code.

I'd suggest using the most permissive CC-BY or at least CC-BY-NC. Just my 0.02 $

But chances are you won't get pulled to court because of some artist's CC'd work anyway. Especially if you have their permission

Hi hook, the code is GPLv3 and the game content is probably going to be CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. I'm not going with NC because of a reason stated before; can't find it but basically it needs to have commercial use allowed for certain things? like Wikipedia?

edit: wording

No NC makes sense as well. Some argue that it's bogus anyway

I'm just saying that the SA clause can potentially give you trouble. E.g. "flameeyes" of Gentoo fame wanted to use some tracks from the Jamendo website in his work, but Jamendo wouldn't allow him to, because the code was under the GPL-2 and not a CC (or even the same CC) license.