Hot answers tagged

6

The easiest approach is to license the source code under one license and art assets under another license. The code can be under an open source license, and the art under a non-commercial license like Creative Commons BY-NC1. CC BY-NC requires attribution, as will any mainstream open source license you choose for your code (unless you choose a niche ultra-...


6

If a program is licensed under the GPL, this license affects whether the program can be combined with other creative works (yes, if the combined work will also be licensed under the GPL). However, if the combination does not produce a combined creative work, the GPL license is irrelevant. In particular, the GPL does not extend to data you are processing with ...


4

Let's break this down. Your title indicates that you want a copyleft license - this rules out all permissive licenses. Just for the record: "copyleft" means that any downstream recipients who distributes adaptations of your framework, is required to offer anyone who receives an adapted work, source code for the adaptation, under the same license (...


4

My goal is for people to be able to use the framework to develop their own projects and only be required to release any changes made to the framework back to the community i.e. they should not be required to publish their project's 'content' as open source. GPL/LGPL/AGPL do not trigger the "linking" requirement on artwork, unless the code itself is present ...


3

There are several levels of thing going wrong here. Firstly, as Brandin notes above, with a few odd exceptions the licence of a program does not affect the licensing status of the output; the status of the output is much more usually a function of the licence on the program's inputs. Secondly, if this is really a GPL-licensed plugin, then even if the ...


3

The big picture answer is that you should probably use a mixture of licences; MIT (or whatever you like) for your code, and whatever licence is appropriate for the logos. There doesn't seem to be any easy way on github to indicate in the "license" field that a mixture of licences is in use, but that's not the end of the world. Don't use that field, and ...


3

The assets that you re-created can be protected under multiple different intellectual property protections. Copyright protection is just one of them, but the assets can also be part of a registered trademark, industrial design right or "trade dress". If you accidentally re-created the assets from hill climb, as in you can prove that you didn't know about ...


3

Commercial projects often do this when the assets are the valuable parts. Games are a good example: often what makes a game worth purchasing is not the engine, but the level design, the graphics, etc. Another category of examples is having an open source reader for closed content; in this case the content may be distributed in a standard format for which ...


2

Unless you can find the license for this program, you must assume the copyright holder(s), which is likely the company or developers of the game, have not granted you permission to use the graphic outside of the game. Hence, you would not be allowed to use the graphic in your GitHub repository. Microsoft explicitly allows you to post in-game footage of ...


2

Benefits of open-sourcing the code are the same as those of any other open source project. The primary benefit to you is your contribution to the open source and programming communities: you have released new code into them which other people can find and make use of. Think: you've just saved someone a lot of time writing up their own flob-detection system. ...


2

The usual approach would be to separately license the code and the assets. Beware that a non-commercial use license will disallow the inclusion on e.g. DVD of free software e.g. with a magazine or probably even the download from Ubuntu. So most likely, Linux distributions will not include such assets. The problem is that "commercial" use is a very broad ...


2

In your README, include a statement for each asset used, Project Attribution “Foo” by bar is licensed under CC BY 2.0 "Baz" by qux is licensed under CC BY 2.0 ... Note: bar and qux would be the names of the original creator of each asset specifically. Or, you can create a separate file, e.g., assets/NOTICE; and include them there.


1

Blender is licensed under the GPL, this also means that addon licenses need to be GPL compatible. The 3D models and artwork made by blender are not affected by the GPL. But while the GPL does not affect the data generated by the program and/or addons, you should look into the addon a little more to see if the output data is generated or pre-bundled. While ...


1

A permissive license like MIT/X11 is a perfectly suitable choice. Consider that permissively-licensed code may be freely combined with proprietary components. The situation is no different here. (If you wanted to use a copyleft license like the GNU GPL, you might need to grant an exception to allow distribution of your GPL'd code with the nonfree assets, but ...


1

They are your files (well, you hold the copyrights) so you can convey them under whatever licence you like. If you decide that CC-BY-SA 4 would be more appropriate than GPLv3, then simply stop conveying them under GPLv3. Remove any text that suggests these files are conveyed under GPLv3, and instead attach text making it clear they're conveyed under CC-BY-...


1

The GPL is focussed on software, so it is not clear how it applies to non-software creative works such as images. But unless the license allows you to do something with these assets, you cannot use them – they are still copyrighted works! I interpret the GPLv3 so that you can use these assets in a proprietary project. However: If you use the unmodified ...


1

Even if your work pretends to be collage: Remixes will inevitably encounter legal problems when the whole or a substantial part of the original material has been reproduced, copied, communicated, adapted or performed – unless a permission has been given in advance through a voluntary open content license like a Creative Commons license, ... ...


1

Generally open-source MMOs follow this model, they keep the assets as their own (because of the considerable amount of work involved) and release the code freely, this way they keep control of the assets and are able to received patches from other projects using the same engine. PlaneShift follows this model and there's some games that are based on their ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible