Red Herring's Game Assets, totally GPL!

fydo on 2006/09/25 07:05 of ThreeLittlePygs

Hello,

For the benefit of the world, I've released all of the art assets for The Search for the Red Herring under the GPL!

I have more details. a lovely preview page, and a nice, tidy download available on my website:
http://www.fydo.net/comments.php?y=06&m=09&entry=entry060924-225920

So go forth, brave programmers, and create games that look like The Search for the Red Herring! :)
I'd be interested to see where these images end up.

Also, feel free to debate here about the validity of releasing art under the GPL! :)

(log in to comment)

Comments

gcewing on 2006/09/25 07:22:

> feel free to debate here about the validity of releasing art under the GPL! :)

All right, I'll kick off: What does it mean to "link" to a piece of artwork? :-)

richard on 2006/09/25 07:30:

Surely the Creative Commons licenses are easier to understand when applied to artwork?

fydo on 2006/09/25 07:47:

>> All right, I'll kick off: What does it mean to "link" to a piece of artwork? :-)

Nice, I haven't heard that one before :)

>> Surely the Creative Commons licenses are easier to understand when applied to artwork?

A valid argument. However, I've run into some problems with using some of the CC licenses. There are some linux distributions (most notably Debian) that do not believe that the CC licenses are truly free. (see this wikipedia page for info on that)

I now see that the FSF recommends the Free Art license. I'll have look into this one a little more... ;)

RB[0] on 2006/09/25 14:54:

I think "linking" back means you let people know that you didnt create the art , and who did and how to contact them.

bishop on 2006/09/25 15:16:

The "subject to French law" stipulation in the Free Art licence is a bit odd. However, the FSF do say this about the GPL:

"The GNU GPL can be used for general data which is not software, as long as one can determine what the definition of "source code" refers to in the particular case."

So, in my case, I'd define my SVG files as the "source code", mandating that redistribution involves those files and not just the bitmaps generated from them.

fydo on 2006/09/25 19:08:

bishop: Yeah, that's the one gripe I have about the GPL. The 'source code' to an image file is a very vague term. An example that I used earlier in an IRC conversation on #pyweek is that if I were to GPL an image of a building, would I have to also include the building as the 'source code'?

Anyways! In light of this and other things I've been reading, I've re-released them under the Free Art License. So go take a second look at the website.

Since it is the FSF recommended license to use for art assets, I think it will make the most people happy. :)


Richard: Do you suppose you could alter the title of the original post from "GPL" to "FAL" ? Thanks in advance ;)

bishop on 2006/09/26 09:40:

fydo: Cool graphics, even though I found the game itself rather too difficult to get into.

On the subject of FSF-recommended licences, there is actually a list of them:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses

I'd avoid the CC licences just because of the Debian incompatibility, however.

gcewing on 2006/09/26 10:11:

Bishop said:

> So, in my case, I'd define my SVG files as the "source code"

If you wanted to invoke any of the "viral" aspects of the GPL, you'd have to define "linking" so that people would know under what circumstances they were required to release their derivative work under the GPL.

If you don't make use of any of the viral clauses, the GPL isn't much different from other open-source licences, so there doesn't seem to be much point in using it.

bishop on 2006/09/26 10:55:

Well, all I'd be concerned about with respect to the artwork is that any distribution of generated bitmaps (unmodified or otherwise) would be accompanied by (an offer of) the original (or modified) SVG files.

I believe that it would be hard to reasonably claim that the mere use of such artwork in a program should cause that program itself to be GPL-licensed - whilst it might involve one kind of code "linking" to another kind of "code" in some way, it's hard to obscure the fact that to a program, the images are just data - but since that wouldn't be my intention, a position statement would probably have to go into the COPYING.txt file explaining the definitions.

Of course, the GPL is clumsy for this kind of thing, but its distinction between source and object code, adjusted appropriately, would certainly attempt to provide certain guarantees that permissive licences would not.