search

EasyRPG / RTP

RPG Maker 2000/2003 material replacement
https://easyrpg.org/rtp-replacement/
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
81 stars 25 forks source link

Add RTP folders, licenses and initial assets #1

Closed fdelapena closed 10 years ago

Ghabry commented 10 years ago

Weren't lots of open music and sounds contributed, too?

I disagree on using GPL for media. Besides that its not recommended for media, we switch to MIT later and it's bad to have GPL files infecting our repos.

take-cheeze mentioned that most of the users will not know how to handle licenses correctly (I expect this too for hobby projects, commercial stuff will take more care). To reduce the risks for violations (by accident) the amount of licenses should be kept small.

fdelapena commented 10 years ago

Yes, there are lots of files from TestGame and will be added to this pull request later.

About MIT, it does not have nothing to do with RTP, there are not static or dynamic linking with assets because they are no code and no compiled to binary at all. Even CC-BY-SA is copyleft and MIT is equivalent to CC-BY, so GPL'd assets don't mess with Player distribution. They are just aggregated and not derivatives of each other. License violation will always exist even with MIT (I feel non-attribution is the most common one).

Licenses are not just simple and application depends on every jurisdiction anyways. The RTP contrbution website should discourage GPL or just don't have this option from a simple uploader wizard with 2 options (have attribution? yes -> share with same license?) and license details and some advices (no fanart and such).

More details about mere agregation: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

I've asked in #gnu and they told me this, but they suggested to ask at licensing gnu org and help softwarefreedom org to be sure about this.

Falc commented 10 years ago

Neither GPL nor MIT are the best licenses for this type of resources. They refer to "software" or "code". The problem with GPL is that it requires to define what is "source" when it is not used to license code. Can a PNG be considered "source"? An XCF? What about a closed format like PSD?

I used to thought that CC by-sa was a good option for content used by GPL code, but then I found this: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/GPL_compatibility_use_cases Probably CC 4.0 by-sa will be fully compatible with GPL 3. CC by (as far as I understand) does not have those problems.

Another option is to release the resources to the public domain or under more than one license (GPL + CC by-sa, or GPL + CC by). Some people in http://opengameart.org publish under many licenses.

Ghabry commented 10 years ago

Public domain is not possible in some countries (e.g. Germany). You should use a license like CC0 instead.

The GPLv3 problem is gone in the future. We plan switching to MIT for Player code. (not all devs were asked yet but all asked agreed)

Ghabry commented 10 years ago

Instead of .gitignore .gitkeep seems to be prefered for keeping empty directories

fdelapena commented 10 years ago

take-cheeze already did it, though gitkeep is just a dummy file not standard, buy used by lot of people as de facto.