That doesn’t answer my question. I asked you what the license is, and that is not a license. I already saw you said that in the description, and I would not have asked what the license was if that answered that question.
8bitprodigy
Creator of
Recent community posts
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.
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/redistribute/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.






