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

Newbie & Debugging Questions
#21

No kidding! ;D

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?

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:

#22

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?

#23

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.

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.

[quote=“nsigma,post:21,topic:45193”]
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.

#24

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.

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:

#25

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 :stuck_out_tongue:

#26

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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

#27

You’re completely misunderstanding what I’m saying.

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

I said that earlier!

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.

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

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, 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.

#28

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).

#29

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:

You said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

#30

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).

[quote=“CodeHead,post:29,topic:45193”]
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.

#31

@CodeHead Danny02 is right, nothing I’ve said has claimed “must open source”, this is all about the end product - that which is shared.

And the argument that a game is a collection is both ridiculous (might as well say a music track is a collection of samples), and rebutted on the CC wiki.

#32

@Danny:

The right to de-compile the code is equivalent to granting a right to access source code. You do realize that as a creator of an engine you have the right to forbid such things as many pieces of software does. The problem is that the notion is being put forth that you forfeit those rights when you use CC assets and it’s not backed up by anything I’ve seen from the CC license or anybody connected to it.

#33

That’s just so wrong! OT - love to see you try and use that excuse in a GPL violation case. ;D

That seriously depends on what jurisdiction you’re under, for private use at least. It’s not actually relevant to my argument …

A “game” as a whole is a derivative work of the asset - that is explicitly mentioned on the CC wiki. The CC-BY-SA license protects your right to freely distribute and modify the derivative work as a whole, hence that includes fiddling with any compiled code that is distributed. It does not include the right to access or modify the source code if that is not shared with you, hence my position above.

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), there is some support for your position on the wiki page linked to. It’s generally down to where the derivative / adaptation line is drawn between code and data. 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. 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. This is all a seemingly grey area, and one that the CC people seem to be looking to elucidate better.

#34

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.

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.

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.

And I think this is where the current sticking point is between our point of views.

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.

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:

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.

Indeed. Due to the complexities of copyright/copyleft in general, I have a feeling that clarity will continue to be elusive.

Good conversation BTW. ;D Respect. 8)