52 days ago(+1)(-1)
"License: CC-NR (Attribution Optional) — Custom
This work is licensed under a custom license inspired by Creative
Commons.
You are free to: - Use — in personal and commercial projects - Modify —
edit, adapt, and build upon the assets
Under the following terms: - No Redistribution (NR) — You may NOT sell,
share, sublicense, or distribute the assets as standalone files, whether
original or modified - No Asset Packs — You may NOT include the assets
in any asset pack, library, or collection intended for redistribution or
resale - No Extraction — You may not use the assets in a way that allows
others to extract and reuse them as standalone assets
Attribution: - Not required, but appreciated"
Better? :)
Not really.
Just so you’re aware, “CC-NR” isn’t an actual Creative Commons license, as you can’t create one by prefixing “CC-” to custom terms. If someone doing serious commercial work gets into a dispute over this, your license may not hold up. You’d be better off using an established license like CC-BY-NC-ND which covers most of what you’re trying to restrict here.
2 days ago(-1)
Bro??? Leave the creator alone this is a super clean and nice asset, clearly they are providing CC0 licensing???
I did leave them alone… Two months ago.
And the fact that it’s super-clean/nice doesn’t resolve the fact that they didn’t provide a license, which is what I was asking for. Why is it wrong for me to ask for an actual license in order to cover my bases?
Also if it is CC0, then I am free to use/modify/etc. this asset however I wish with absolutely zero restriction, effectively a public-domain equivalent license. However, the author clearly stated there are restrictions on how the asset may be used, which makes it clear they are NOT providing it under CC0 licensing.
Thanks for demonstrating why making the license an asset is provided under explicit is so important, however.