Maybe. At the moment, my main focus is helping to make up for Itch.io’s lack of a search option comparable to OGA and, along the way, to point out issues I run into.
Recent community posts
I don’t normally follow people who release more things ineligible for my list than eligible (I already get enough irrelevant stuff I have to sort through), but, for now at least, I’ll follow you so I can get notified when it’s time to update my list and offline backup of Tiny 16.
I respect that. My concern is that, for my list, I’m wary of active ambiguity like that because I’m trying to plan for situations where the creator is no longer reachable for clarification and someone might have only archived the description and/or metadata block.
(Plus, I’m just generally wary of ambiguity from all my time reading tech law blogs.)
Is there anyway I could convince you to tweak either the description or the metadata block so it’s completely clear to anyone who doesn’t read the comments whether you intend “your choice of CC-BY 3.0 or CC-BY 4.0” or for one to trump the other and, if so, which one?
The metadata should be something you select from a dropdown, judging by the screenshots of the Itch.io creator UI that I’ve seen.
Either way, it’s more that, as stated, it causes uncertainty for you to have two different statements of what the license is with neither clearly overruling the other or saying that the reader may choose whichever of the two they prefer.
Your description says CC-BY-3.0 but your metadata block says CC-BY 4.0.
It may or may not be possible to satisfy both at the same time, resulting in an effective “all rights reserved” status, so you’ll probably want to bring them into agreement to play it safe.
Hey, the main reason I understand as much as I do is that I’ve been following a lot of blogs about tech, the law, and open-source stuff over the years. It’s really something people should get a more formal introduction to.
Also, while it’s not a show-stopper since you’ve got the proper info in the “More Information” box, “CCA” doesn’t actually mean anything anyone will recognize. The abbreviation for “Creative Commons Attribution v4.0” is “CC BY 4.0”. (The easiest way to check these sorts of things is to look at the Creative Commons site. The URL is
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ and the title is “Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)”)
No problem. You make good stuff, so it’d be a shame if people couldn’t use it because of quirks in their country’s laws.
Having stuff under a proper license also means that I can add it to the list I’m building to help people find assets I wish I had when I was a kid. (I was learning to program but had no pixel-art skills. I ended up giving up on games and doing non-game programming instead.)
That said, I notice that you made the same change to some of your other assets, but the description says “Licence is under CCBYSA”. You’ll want to change either their descriptions or their “More Information” blocks so they agree.
You are free to use them as is or modify them to your liking. All i ask is you credit me if you do use them please :)
This is what’s known as an “informal license” and, in some countries, it puts people who take you up on that offer at legal risk.
My advice is to edit the metadata in the “More Information” box and set “Asset License” to one of the versions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license, which lays out “do whatever you want as long as you give me credit” in precise legal terms.
You clearly misunderstand what CC0 means because “All files are CC0, but not for commerical use.” is a contradiction.
Putting your content under “CC0” means “I irreversibly give up all rights to say what people can and cannot do with this.”
The Creative Commons website has a giant warning about that in the license chooser.
Your description of your terms makes no sense.
If you put something into the public domain, that means you irrevocably give up your rights to it, which means you no longer have the power to set conditions for what people may or may not do with it.
If you retain the right to set terms, then you haven’t put it into the public domain and saying “public domain” doesn’t grant people the rights you think it does.
Thanks for that. I'm about to go (back) to bed, but I'll add them to my list after I wake up.
As for the license being under "More information", if it was there before, that's my bad. I've looked through so many listings and never seen any evidence that putting the license info in there was even an option that I probably allowed myself to get complacent.
Is this under the same CC0 terms as the original? If so, would you mind mentioning that in the description? (or in the license field under "More information"... though I'll admit I only just realized that it existed and had to delete a "could you add a license?" comment because of that.)
If not, would you mind naming some other well-known license? (eg. CC-BY)
(You can't be too careful when it comes to assuming licensing terms.)
As I mentioned when commenting on The Mighty Pack, I'm a bit wary about licensing. Would you mind being a bit more specific? (eg. If it's CC0, please say it in the description.)
...mainly because laws exist (which are intended to protect you from abuse by corporate lawyers) that say "'whatever' doesn't really mean 'whatever' unless you explicitly list certain things you're opting out of." That's why licenses have that big boldface blob disclaiming things like warranty of suitability for purpose. It's to protect you from the possibility of getting sued because of the implication that, because you made it and published it, it meets some minimum standard of fitness to be used. (Though, granted, that part is more about software which might get used in a business's critical processes and then fail, rather than art assets.)
Are these under terms which would be compatible with inclusion in something like the Debian Linux package repository?
(Debian requires that everything served up be under a proper free/libre/open-source license and all definitions of free-as-in-freedom or open-source software prohibit restrictions on redistribution or discrimination against fields of endeavour, even on pieces chopped out of another package to be reused, relying on attribution requirements and, optionally, ShareAlike requirements to prevent bad actors from trying to sell free stuff. That means that "You can't redistribute or resell these on their own" restrictions are a deal-breaker.)
I ask because I'm going through Itch.io, assembling a collection of suitable game assets... and that question applies to all of your creations that I've looked at so far. They're all very nice and I'd love to have them on my list.
(Generally, Libre licenses make attribution mandatory (eg. the CC-BY) to balance out the requirement to allow redistribution, but some of the people already on my list cared about making attribution optional enough that they went with the nuclear option and used something like the CC0 to release their work into the public domain, irrevocably giving up their rights to dictate what happens to them.)
Would you mind adding a license declaration to the description for this?
People can't legally assume that these are "License: CC BY 3.0" like the rest of your game-icons.net edits because the CC-BY has no "no further restrictions may be added to derivative works" clause like the CC-BY-SA or GNU GPL.
Makes sense. When I'm feeling in a "do not steal" mood, I use GPL for my code because it's the corporate actors I care about abusing my good will but, otherwise, I just go for MIT because it's a minimal "leave the attribution intact" license and my main goal is to lift the baseline for everyone.
As for the levels, let's just hope my brain doesn't stymie me too much. I tend to bounce back and forth between my hobby projects unpredictably. (eg. I've got an in-progress project I poke at periodically which is going to be an InnoSetup/NSIS-like installer builder for DOS retro-enthusiasts but, lately, I've been focusing on preparing to push to GitHub a GUI and guide for feeding manga into Tesseract OCR and getting high-quality output from Google Translate.)
I just wanted to thank you for using CC0 rather than some home-made "don't redistribute or resell" license.
It means I can add it to my list of art assets which wouldn't be a blocker to getting any resulting open-source game into Linux package repositories.
(Up until now, I've focused on writing utilities, but I collect assets because, if I can find time, I've always wanted to experiment with things like better procedural level generation.)
Thanks for making that clear.
I was considering this as part of a pile of possible resources for experimenting with game development but, while I respect your position, if I make a free game, my ultimate aspiration would be to see it beside things like OpenTTD in the Debian Linux package repositories, and all major definitions of open-source include a clause which Debian phrases as "No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use.".
Technically, "you may not redistribute or resell it" is legally ambiguous since that's what happens as part of incorporating it into a project.
It'd be better to say something like "you may not redistribute or resell it on its own or as part of a larger asset pack".
(Also, it looks so stunning that it makes me want to double-check that you didn't rip it from a game called Frogatto and Friends... though I'm a bit of a licensing zealot so I'll have to pass on it. Aside from preferring stuff I can redistribute if the original source goes away, or as a DVD+R I give to someone who needs a little help getting started, your license terms mean that, if I were to use it in an open-source game, it probably wouldn't be allowed into the Debian Linux package repositories and having something I create show up wherever games like OpenTTD show up is what I'd aspire to.)
I've been too busy to play this lately, but the music in the copy I impulse-bought years ago on Humble Store is beautiful. No clue what they're actually called, but I especially love the tracks that `unxwb music.xwb` extracts as 00000007.wav and 0000000b.wav.
Nice! Given my strict "only games and grandfathered apps can be closed-source" policy, this'll be the first client I've had a chance to play with since Desurium was open-sourced.
(Of course, in the longer term, I'll be more interested in the API since one of my hobby projects (currently on hold while I work on my degree project) is an experiment to see how far I can get in producing a truly service-independent "client" that can hook into APIs but is also equally happy autodetecting the names, icons, and binary paths for installed games using heavily unit-tested heuristics.)