Allow/switch to CC-BY-SA as license for graphics and sounds

[Jenalya]

Nami's Art was CC BY SA too, right?

Probably, but I'd still prefer if he could state that somewhere else than in a private irc conversation.

Orange icon is mine:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4160

Will check for the other art later, when I'm at home.

All right, I updated the file:https://github.com/jtoelke/tmwa-client- ... ac2fd3af7a

Like I said on IRC, you'll need to differency who's the original author from contributors of your graphics and sounds in order to fully respect the CC BY-SA 3.0.

Mh, there are quite some files where this isn't really possible, as e.g. tilesets where different pieces got arranged together in one file, or the npcs files with many different npc sprites.

[o11c]

Like I said on IRC, you'll need to differency who's the original author from contributors of your graphics and sounds in order to fully respect the CC BY-SA 3.0.

Like I said on IRC, that doesn't seem to be the case.

You only need to list the original author's name with at least as much prominence as the later contributors.

[Sanity]

I don't see a need for any other license except GPL. Is there really one?

[Nard]

Like I said on IRC, you'll need to differency who's the original author from contributors of your graphics and sounds in order to fully respect the CC BY-SA 3.0.

Like I said on IRC, that doesn't seem to be the case.

You only need to list the original author's name with at least as much prominence as the later contributors.

None of you is right:

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

this applies if an Author can be defined.
Paragraph 4c which o11c refers to speaks about collective adaptation or collection (tilesets for example but also composite NPCs), and obviously means that you have no right to minimize contributors (of course main author) .

For example, If I used my Avatar for a NPC (with some extra stuff from me) should I be considered as the author?
NO!
I would be a only a NPC sprite designer, I can sign the stuff I made only, but I should also mention the player sprite, haircut, robe, circlet and boots sprite authors. This will become soon impracticable. If you are more tight to the letter than on the spirit of this license (similar in goals to GPL), to our project contributors and to other people that like to share their work with others but do not like when someone get credits for a job that he or she didn't do, then you go it to the same wall that the Berkeley license met.
Well, none of us is a lawyer and indefinitely discussing about text refinements intended for judges is pointless. All we need to do is to maintain a set of files where authors are indicated when possible, or a list of authors when there are several (some tile sets) with Licenses agreed by them: Be as fair as possible. The best would be probably to develop a data base of TMW (and forks) related material; but emergency and intelligence say that a nice text file (Thanks again Ali and Reidy) is a good start, better at least than the previously imposed GPL licence.
Look for example how Mediawiki deals with authors (should be a good reference isn't it?): http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/License

A second step was to configure wiki Special:Upload page to have to choose between a set of licenses. This is done now. Please comment and suggest.

I don't see a need for any other license except GPL. Is there really one?

GPL does not apply to documents which have no "source" ( graphics, pixel Art, music ...), CC by SA is the closest in that case.

[o11c]

GPL does not apply to documents which have no "source" ( graphics, pixel Art, music ...), CC by SA is the closest in that case.

On the contrary, the GPL is perfectly clear that "source" means "preferred form for modification". There does not have to be any other form.

[Nard]

On the contrary, the GPL is perfectly clear that "source" means "preferred form for modification". There does not have to be any other form.

And what does mean "preferred form for modification" in the case of a photograph or a tune? A pencil? piano? a camera? or even Rosegarden? Source is code, art is data. Of course you can say than in a certain way source is data too, or that a midi file is a kind of code; but you can modify the midifile a lot with no change in it's artistic content (it is the same tune). The "letter to Elise" will always be a Bach tune wether it is "modified" by a noob piano player, a midi file playing software, or Alan Baylock's Airmen of Note. In short, you need a GPL software to display, perform execute CC content, the opposite is nonsense.

It is because of this obvious inconsistency that there was a need for Creative Commons and why it was created.

[4144]

GPL does not apply to documents which have no "source" ( graphics, pixel Art, music ...), CC by SA is the closest in that case.

On the contrary, the GPL is perfectly clear that "source" means "preferred form for modification". There does not have to be any other form.

in GPL images source is xcf or psd file, music source some music projects.
but small remark. this sources have sense if it contains layers/tracks.

[Nard]

in GPL images source is xcf or psd file, music source some music projects.
but small remark. this sources have sense if it contains layers/tracks.

You cannot execute xcf svg gif or png nor compile them to get machine code because they are data, they include the art, but the art has a meaning regardless of the file format which is not the case of a program source.
You can play a midi file or even a music sheet in some format like lilypond or finale but the music itself has nothing to do with a program. It could be comparated with an algorithm though. Moussorgski wrote the Pictures at an Exhibition suite for piano; a part of it is: В стольном городе во Киеве (The Bogatyr Gates (in the Capital in Kiev) aka The Great Gate of Kiev). Maurice Ravel made an outstanding orchestration out of it. The result of this contribution is still The Great Gate of Kiev by Moussorgsk (arranged by M.Ravel) (the art) even if it is been played by an orchestra (the software) instead of thee piano (still the software (with different algorithm or engine) from the same set of music notes (data, art again).

In the same order of Ideas you can patent an algorithm, a software, you cannot patent art, art is subject to Author laws software is not. Both are sublect to different copyrights or copylefts... GPL was designed by coders for coders. Creative Commons is designed for "creators". both licenses are complementary with the same spirit as the intersection (the common will to share with fair use in mind).

Btw I do consider some programmers as coding artists

[4144]

in debian one of condition is source for GPL images but only if it had layers. Without layers you can convert png to xcf by self.
i think same for music/sounds.

[Ablu]

The GPL defines source code as

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

I guess this means a single png file which was created without using any other formats like xcf in between could be considered as "preferred form of the work".

This also means that if you made a music midi file and converted it to ogg later you would have to make the midi file accessible too (which makes sense, since it makes modification easier). However this does not mean that you need to make the keyboard you used for making this midi file available. You only have to publish "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". This could mean a midi file if you used it to generate the music or a xcf file if you used layers to edit your image. And sharing those files makes a lot of sense to me to make modifications to the image a lot easier.

Regards,
Ablu

[Nard]

This could mean a midi file if you used it to generate the music

If you think that a midifile made by a real musician is easier to arrange than sheet music, (in case it applies) then you will have surprises :/
Edit: examples

Good opensource, bullsh.t music: http://www.classicalmidi.co.uk/music2/2542op28n16.mid

the following are all the same tune : Chopin; Nocturne Op.27 No. 1. in C#min

• Good opensource, not so bad to listen: http://www.piano-midi.de/midis/chopin/chpn_op27_1.mid
• Not so good open source if not reworked a lot after beeing recorded: http://www.midiworld.com/midis/other/ch ... no2701.mid
• Among the best music, impossible to record in an intelligible way as a midifile , It would require a HUGE amount of work (days) with "source", sheet and good analysis software to get a pale standard midifile copy of it.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAcAWWU_0mE

drive, afterbeat, groove, in a word: feeling are things that can exist in data, but can't be transcribed well (even in words). It is a bit different in pixel art, litterature, poetry, and dance but not in the principle the only thing you can share is the result of your work, the only source is YOU.

[Ablu]

This could mean a midi file if you used it to generate the music

If you think that a midifile made by a real musician is easier to arrange than sheet music, (in case it applies) then you will have surprises :/

I do not think that a uploaded scanned versions of sheets of paper are a preferred form to make modifications to it.

[Nard]

I do not think that a uploaded scanned versions of sheets of paper are a preferred form to make modifications to it.

Listen to the example , look on the sheet music that goes with the last example and you may understand why:
In this example , the artist performs with a lot of tempo variations. then provided that he'd like to share his work in midi file format (or a better one,he would record in realtime on a midi keyboard. The problem is that a computer clock is rather stupid and will not follow the rallentendos accelerandos and other feeling note placements. and would record it as is. The result would be a total mess in rhythm that quantize features of nice sequencers would make even worse. If you were fool enough to modify that it you would have to compute a variable tempo between at least half of the notes to rebuild the original sheet music that is the real underlying source of the music.
And in this example the sheet is available almost everywhere. In other ones you have not and need to rebuild chords, harmonic progression is the basic information necessary to understand the "touch" of the artist, on which you build an arrangement. In such cases it is faster to modify with a paper scan of the sheet than from a midifile. Now on some tunes, especially percussion ones, artists do not even use a midi instrument and prefer to work directly on sampled sounds, because they are more "realistic"; and work directly with audio sequencing software (Ardour for ex.). This is also the case of DJ-like music which is often built with reworked samples of other acoustic material (including non-free one). in this last case, like in pixart, source in GPL meaning is simply nonsense. layers in graphic software are just like tracks in sequencer, sharing it means only that it is a better file format than a flat one not that it is a source or a program. A program reads data and produces an output. what kind of data is a piece of art able to read? what kind of action is it able to perform? assimilating them is just like assimilating a function with it's arguments and result.

[Ablu]

If for some reason (your first example sounds a bit hypothetical to me) a midi file file is not the preferred form then it makes sense to provide the other sources for it. This could maybe even be a scanned version of paper even though i doubt that this is more helpful than a file which can be opened via a note viewer for example.

This is also the case of DJ-like music which is often built with reworked samples of other acoustic material (including non-free one)

Using non free samples as base does not allow you to make the result free anyway.

Regards,
Ablu

[Nard]

If for some reason (your first example sounds a bit hypothetical to me) a midi file file is not the preferred form then it makes sense to provide the other sources for it. This could maybe even be a scanned version of paper even though i doubt that this is more helpful than a file which can be opened via a note viewer for example.

This is also the case of DJ-like music which is often built with reworked samples of other acoustic material (including non-free one)

Using non free samples as base does not allow you to make the result free anyway.

Regards,
Ablu

My first example is not hypothetic it IS the preferred form of musicians who want to play public domain music after... pdf and mp3!
For non public domain they use cracked commercial software (there is no good piblic domain sequencer on mac and win) and those mentioned above.; almost never midi files.
No few music viewer,at the moment, allows you to display the music correctly from midi recorded music, because men are not machines. you have to work on the file before, with a powerful enough sequencer. At this moment only Rosegarden allows it on linux. when you have aligned the notes with beats, then you can begin to work with a good "music viewer" (most of them are just toys)...

By the way, you can also notice another reason why midifile is not a source: the result is heavily hardware dependent, thus the music I can play with the hadware, the sounds I programmed on it will never sound as well on the saucepans that most of us use to listen music on our computers, not vto speak about the D/A converters quality of the sound cards.
Thus if I publish an ogg or any similar audio format, I have not enough money to share the "sources" of the file with as little a one of you. I can give you the parms of my mixer, of the 2 efx racks and those of my synths, they will be useless because the hardware is not sold anymore. I even doubt that I could give the samples of the base waveforms as they are probably copyrighted... but the data produced with them is free for any kind of distribution