Why does the assets license forbid any commercial use?

[Wuzzy]

According to https://svn.thedarkmod.com/svn/darkmod_src/trunk/LICENSE.txt, the licence for all assets (graphics, sounds, maps, models and basicly anything which is not code) is CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. For anyone who doesn’t know what this means, you see a summary on https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/.

 

Why has this rather restrictive* license been chosen in favor of a more permissive one? Especially, why did you choose to explicitly forbid any commercial use of the assets?

 

 

* = I call it “restrictive” because of the NC clause.

[Serpentine]

Because a lot of the texture and sound source that we use are also CC-NC.

 

Sadly, much like a lot of the code used to be BSD and now is GPL as a result of the whole engine etc, external licenses often act as viruses.

[zergrush]

According to https://svn.thedarkm...unk/LICENSE.txt, the licence for all assets (graphics, sounds, maps, models and basicly anything which is not code) is CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. For anyone who doesn't know what this means, you see a summary on https://creativecomm...s/by-nc-sa/3.0/.

 

Why has this rather restrictive* license been chosen in favor of a more permissive one? Especially, why did you choose to explicitly forbid any commercial use of the assets?

 

 

* = I call it "restrictive" because of the NC clause.

 

I don't think art assets being non-commercial is of any importance. Not even rms thinks that, as a matter of fact. The game's still Free as In Freedom because the most important part, namely the code is under a FLOSS license.

 

Sadly, much like a lot of the code used to be BSD and now is GPL as a result of the whole engine etc, external licenses often act as viruses.

 

Now this I don't agree with. Share-alike licenses for code force all improvements and changes to be shared, which is fantastic. For instance as poorly written the D3 BFG edition code may be, some people around here already ported a few features for using the Dark Mod version of the engine. This would have never happened if the D3 engine was released under BSD, because most development companies are just nasty hoarders when it comes to keeping code to themselves.

Edited October 10, 2013 by zergrush

[Springheel]

Especially, why did you choose to explicitly forbid any commercial use of the assets?

 

Speaking personally about the assets I created, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth to spend time and effort creating things for free only to see someone else swoop in and make money off them.

[Bikerdude]

Speaking personally about the assets I created, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth to spend time and effort creating things for free only to see someone else swoop in and make money off them.

Damn right and if said company/arsehole was based in the UK I would ride over there on my motorcycle and ask them in person why they are using my creative assets without my permission.

[nbohr1more]

I like what Moonbo's done. Using his mission partly as a promotional vehicle to sell his books.

 

I would love to see more of this.

 

I would also love to see mission author's host blogs and get some advertizing revenue for the traffic they

drive.

 

But it's a slippery slope and may taint the whole thing. Hard to say.

 

I suspect that some unscrupulous business might just sell TDM under the premise that it's Open Source like

the group that made that mobile app from Lugara (precursor to Overgrowth). They just took Lugara and ported

it to iOS and made a bundle. Then Wolfire Games came along and tried to release on iOS and found some

crooks had already released a version. Though it would be tough to translate TDM to a tablet or phone...

[lowenz]

I like what Moonbo's done. Using his mission partly as a promotional vehicle to sell his books.

Yeah, that's the kind of intelligent business I prefer.

Edited October 11, 2013 by lowenz

[mavit]

Damn right and if said company/arsehole was based in the UK I would ride over there on my motorcycle and ask them in person why they are using my creative assets without my permission.

 

I think we all know how you feel, but I don't think it's always quite that black and white. For example, back before broadband was common, people used to sell copies of Linux distributions by mail-order, usually for little more than the postage and reproduction costs, and the licences were chosen to allow this, because otherwise many people would have had no way to get hold of the software. These same considerations mean that Linux distributions today won't include software with restrictions on commercial use. Linux distributions do take other people's work, and some of them make money out of it, but I don't think most people would consider them arseholes for it.

[Serpentine]

Personally I have no problem with people using code, assets etc in commercial products - so long as its attributed well (not tiny text or in some silly readme/license, specially for assets). And that they are used in a way which is not in direct competition with the source.

 

For example if someone forked TDM with minor changes and sold it for cash - screw that. But if someone were making an agricultural simulator and needed textures and stuff, I'd love to save a few people their time, when I have already spent it, and get the nod that my work is up to industry standards or better.

 

Its like people who see words as offensive and, through that they take the choice to be offended. It is your choice to see something as a compliment.

[Wuzzy]

Thanks, Springheel for the answer.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Wuzzy