GPL discussion

[snowdrop]

http://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/car ... -bfw-set-a

I wrote the comment asking for the source....don't ask me why my name isn't shown.

[Ravenchild]

So he licenses the stuff under the Gnu Free Documentation Licence, while the original art is licensed under the GPL? That should indeed not work.

And I don't get what he means by "role-playing". There are probably no "adventure" cards in the game that could make up a story. edit: There is a special game mode for role-playing: http://www.thegamecrafter.com/uploads/b ... 1_v0.2.pdf

[Q_x]

it is still not all wrong there, this guy can straighten things out. But, as it is now, its IMHO illegal.

[ghosthand]

This is one of the confusions (and problems I have) with GPL'ing works of art: the source code needs to be clearly defined. In software, it's pretty clear cut what the source code is (there should be no confusion). In art, however, it can be pretty confusing for some who want to distribute their modifications.

So in the case of Card Armies BFW, if the original "source code" distributed by BFW was in digital form, it seems that Card Armies BFW needs to provide a digital "source code" of modifications of that particular art. (Which I believe is what snowdrop was asking for.)

This is a big difference from a Creative Commons license, which doesn't require the distributee (is that even a word?) access to the original medium. Which I think makes it easier for art to be distributed.

But the important thing here is that BFW, or any other creator who uses GPL for art, needs to clearly define or make obvious what the source code is. (I can assume that BFW does do this, am I right?)

This is always a good discussion provided that no one is shouting. But it's important topic to understand. Kudos to snowdrop for pointing this, and the re-license issue, out to the designer in a civilized manner. And like Q_x pointed out, it's a problem easily fixed.

-Chris

[snowdrop]

Hi Chris....

But the important thing here is that BFW, or any other creator who uses GPL for art, needs to clearly define or make obvious what the source code is. (I can assume that BFW does do this, am I right?)

Actually, when it comes to the status of the graphics BfW artists, or at least some of them, have explicitly stated they won't release the sources, which in their case is the photoshop files most of the time. I'm not well versed with the reasoning behind this and I have myself raised the question in their forums without any success.

So, as far as I know, the "binary" is equal to the "source" when it comes to the raster art of BfW. It is all also licensed under the GPL2 or later, but I have not seen anything special or specific written about the art.

Note: Although I usually don't feel comfortable discussing other projects licensing since it seems to be a hot topic and an issue that upsets people (unnecessarily really - what's the problem with being open and discussing things, as you write, in a civilized manner?) I think it is called for in these cases as whatever conclusions could be drawn is something we would be able to learn from for our own project given we use the identical license. As such I see this as rather interesting and am eager to learn whatever from the open source communities.

[Q_x]

Hi

GPL (FDL as well) license is pretty straightforward. You have to have some freedoms provided, period. This stuff applies to released PDF as well - basically you have to provide the graphics and working files (tex-like, scribus, whatever) in the source form, this means with all the files needed to recreate or change whatever is GPLed. FDL licensing is incompatible with what you have released.
Sorting this mess is easy, as you can simply take care for each piece independently - providing information required for every distinct part of the game. Releasing whole code tree with license and authorship information wherever needed and provide information about how to look for the licensing/authorship information as well. And you can release text on your cards on FDL, but can not relicense works in the way that violates author's will or good name.

Lossless quality file in target resolution (.bmp, .png, most of .tiff files) is the source form in case of GPLed graphics. Not a hires layered file, we would all gladly be given, really. Its like asking for oil painting that is still wet, or asking for butterfly that is on the photo plus raw camera file, or asking musician to release his sample collection and give you brand of bass strings and mic used for the recording. GPLing artwork IS ridiculous, but it sometimes happen (mostly due to people holding CC licensed artwork from getting into linux repos and following GPL virus pandemia), so this is how and why the problem is solved. Once again: source = minimum used to (re-)create exactly the same product or modify it without loosing quality. And if a person can't edit lossless file as he/she wishes, or want to abuse it, like when printing big poster out of shitty graphics, its because lack of craftsmanship or "know-howness" on his/her side.
Its not that I like content released in the way described, but this is how the world works, sadly.

[Knitter]

What are we, actually, discussing?

GPL is not a perfect license and GPL v2 has some loop-holes one can exploit in order not to distribute the code, Web applications being the best example of it, and FDL is not a good license for this kind of work. I don't see how many of the FDL assumptions and requirements apply to the game and it's cards.

What interest do we have in his source? Are those images not directly taken from Wesnoth?

License questions will always arise, mostly because we are not lawyers, even when we have some knowledge in a given country' laws, that can't be applied world wide.

[pennomi]

What interest do we have in his source? Are those images not directly taken from Wesnoth?

I think that the purpose of getting the source is not for the images, but for the game itself. Since it is supposedly freely licensed, it should be available for download by anybody without having to pay the money to get it.

Snowdrop wants to put the game's files on the wtactics.org server so that anyone can get it easily. Like snowdrop, I'd be happy to chip in and pay the $25 for the cards if that's the way to get the source.

[Knitter]

Though "freely available" was never about the price, I understand the reasoning behind getting the source and providing it without requiring payment and it would, probably, be a nice way to promote the spirit of WTactics.

I tried to find a way to contact the user directly, but the links I used were not correct, has anyone sent a message directly to the user that posted that game?

[snowdrop]

For me, it's about two things:

1) Understanding his interpretation of the GPL etc, in order to understand how we can or can't use it. It's mostly a curiosity and what-if thing.

2) Making sure that whatever work has been done by others, for example in the BfW project, isn't just ripped and exploited: If the license is violated then the artwork surely is so in that case.

Only way I can understand this is to either first pay the 25$ and hope to see the source then or be made an offer to acquire it, or to ask in advance so I know what I'm paying for. At the same time, the very questions I ask should be enough to establish in what way the license is followed by him.

I tried to find a way to contact the user directly, but the links I used were not correct, has anyone sent a message directly to the user that posted that game?

I have no contact info whatsoever to that person and couldn't easily find some either. I haven't played sherlock though... (else I would rather do that first than post in public).