alex wrote:Basically, every time you distribute printed copies of the cards, you must also distribute the source files for those cards alongside the cards. So if you send me a deck, I should expect a CD containing the source files for all the card art, or a written offer to download it with specific instructions on how to do so.
Most people/companies wouldn't make that reading. One example is Linux - or almost any software - you getting a distro on a CD doesn't mean that you on the same CD must get the source code to everything within that distro, even if it all was just GPL in theory. Keyword here is what "convey" means. Most interpret is at making the source easily attainable and one having the obligation to share the source.
So my own guess is that you don't break the GPL by getting a deck of playing cards byt not, in that deck, getting the sources. And just as you stated, IANAL....
I would argue that the preferred form of a digital illustration is a layered xcf or kra file, or an svg if it's a vector graphic.
Yes, I don't see how it could mean anything else for anyone that understands the basics of how an illustration is created. It means that layers etc should be intact in a way which makes sense, and if possible, in accordance with what personal style the artist happens to have. Some use layers properly, others use them very chaotic ; ) In either case, as long as the artist doesn't make anything intentionally harder to modify, I think what can be done is done in regards to raster art. 3d-files etc in blender for example, or raster art, is much easier to understand how well and what a source is. When applied on raster this can really only be broken down to layer usage due to the format.
. I would argue that a .psd is not a preferred form because it's a proprietary format which requires proprietary software to edit. This is, at the very least, against the spirit of the GPL.
I would argue a PSD is indeed a preferred form if PSD is what the majority of pro artists use and if that is a format that is industry standard, which it is. Imagine we find a format that is all the way GPL, and an artist that uses it. It is small and obscure, so what good is it if only one single software can open it, and 99% of the worlds artist cant work in it because they don't master that software? That, if anything, defeats the purpose of the GPL....
I do however agree with you ethically, and in theory, I would personally prefer if all artists used open formats, which sadly they don't. That said, I'm forced to have a pragmatic stance...
I would suggest asking artists to use GIMP or Krita to create their works, otherwise people without Photoshop will be prevented from enjoying the benefits of libre art.
Finding good artists that are willing to work for us and which we can afford and that can replicate the style is a pain in the ass and almost mission impossible. (Try, I have, for several years...)
Giving those artists instructions of how to practice their job won't do. 99% of the pros out there don't use GIMP, for a good reason, and even if they could learn they won't just because one client wishes it. We're not in a position to have such demands.
Again, in theory I agree and understand: If we had to candidates and both were of equal skill and equal cost, I would personally pick the GIMP-one.
I completely agree with this. CC-BY-SA is a better way to license artwork than the GPL.
This will happen, as Nico and I chatted today and he raised your thoughts.
(At the time when the project launced BfW wasn't CC, so, I couldn't really re-license it then.)
I think it would be a good start if those who want to participate in this license port declare that they license their works under GNU GPL v2 or later and CC-BY-SA 4.0, so the change can be as smooth as possible.
This decision however has to be made by everyone who contributed to this project individually or their contribution would not be available under the new license. I—who hasn't made any significant contribution to this project yet—hope that those who have, will make a decision in the project's favor.
In regards to our art
To avoid exactly mess like that and problems with hunting down people all over the world/years that have passed the project has always had a clear clause stating that I can re-license it however I want given that 1) the work has been original work that was contributed to the project and 2) the new or additional license is also open source. So, no need for permissions: All art assets that are original work for us is something the project owns and can license however it wants.
(When coming to assets from BfW nobody can ever touch their license except those guys, and how they do it is their problem).
Anyway, another thing I'd like to point out is that the card templates should contain license (and authorship) information. Is this already planned?
Giving credit isn't really necessary within the GPL, but is for social reasons, and more so for legal with a CC-BY-version.
Giving it on site, documents etc is something I think is standard and appreciated. However, as an avid card player I have never seen it given on a card itself, info about who created that template....
Template is considered original art for the project, like any other artwork. It is credited(?), but has had many, many, contributors. Some adjusting 3 pixels, some working on it for weeks. I think Nico did a great job with credits on the arcmage site...