Relicensing the Garagegames demo assets?

Level design, models, animations, physics, etc.
4 posts Page 1 of 1
Duion
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
  by Duion » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:54 pm
The Garagegames demos like Pacific and Chinatown have been released as MIT verisons as far as I know, the problem with that is just that the demos consist mostly of art assets and MIT is a license for code.
So I thought is it possible to relicense those assets? Or how they are supposed to be used with the MIT license? The license header is supposed to be at the top of each code file, but for art assets this can be complicated.
Bloodknight
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:58 pm
by Bloodknight » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:01 pm
The problem with MIT, well one of the problems is in part the discussions regarding where the licence goes, the assumption that the licence file *must* be included inside each and every code file is not accurate, while i'm pretty sure there are lawyers somewhere with an opinion nobody really cares enough to test opensource licences in court apart from the tiny minority of butthurt GPL zealots, so the reality is that anybody with a 'definitive' answer is not necessarily correct.

Having seen various MIT projects in the past, with just a single licence in the root folder, and others with licences in subfolders, its probably fair to assume that if you make a derivative model or texture you can just licence the whole package/subfolder under MIT.

TBH the fastest way to actually find out how varied the opinions are about this, as well as 'relicensing' which as near as I can understand is removing one licence and adding a new one in its stead is to post something that is/was MIT and tell everyone it is now CC-BY-SA which as far as I can tell is the closest licence to MIT, it allows commercial use and keeps the licence chain going.
JeffR
Steering Committee
Steering Committee
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:49 pm
 
by JeffR » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:45 am
I mentioned in the irc, but I went ahead and emailed Eric about it to see if we can't get this better defined. Will keep this posted.
Duion
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
by Duion » Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:40 pm
Now after I thought about it, it would not really help much to relicense as CC-BY since the only benefit would be that it would fit the license you can chose on most websites.

On the other hand MIT is maybe more permissive since it does not require a direct attribution when you use it, just including the license is ok. It is also not clear to many people how to attribute properly with CC-BY. Some people also have custom rules how attribution has to be done etc.

So I would suggest not to relicense it. Theoretically you can just put up MIT content anywhere under what license you want, only condition is you have to include the license header somehow.
4 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest