Content Licensing

[Mac_Fife]

I figured since Cyan chose the GPL they had at least some interest in SA-like provisions; if not CC-BY is certainly an option, but of course that means that not only are fan ages not required to be released under CC, but modified Cyan ages aren't either. I'd personally not like to see bugfixes and enhancements kept locked to particular shards.

I'd agree with all of that. The reason I'd propose keeping an open mind towards non-SA like licenses is that I can see the potential that an age creator may have his own development line/storyline/whatever in mind that would mean he'd rather that his work wasn't arbitrarily modified, and non-SA on assets would allow the artist to release their work with ND if they so wished. It's easy to add SA to a derivative work, but you can't remove it.

[branan]

I'd agree with all of that. The reason I'd propose keeping an open mind towards non-SA like licenses is that I can see the potential that an age creator may have his own development line/storyline/whatever in mind that would mean he'd rather that his work wasn't arbitrarily modified, and non-SA on assets would allow the artist to release their work with ND if they so wished. It's easy to add SA to a derivative work, but you can't remove it.

I don't think it's right for somebody to base their content on somebody else's work, and then not allow others to do the same. That goes for code and assets.

That is to say: I don't personally consider catering to those sort of people something that one should put any effort into.

Edited for word choice, so I don't sound like such a dick

[Mac_Fife]

OK, I take your point, but I think the question of the scale of re-use is significant in respect of what is essentially an artwork: If we were talking about someone lifting 3/4 of an existing age design including models, textures, etc., and modifying the the remaining 1/4 then I'd certainly agree with you. If it's someone using only a couple of textures for continuity with existing Uru theming in what is otherwise a completely original work, then I'd be inclined to say that the "whole" is that author's work. But I'd also accept that there's a vast area in between those examples with varying shades of grey that'd be very difficult to rule on.

[kaelisebonrai]

@Mac_Fife, as an artist, I wholeheartedly disagree.

I agree with branan, however...

As an artist, I feel that if one wishes to use my art, that I would happily share with them... They should also share with others, down the line, and those people, with yet more, down the line. And so on.

Such is the basis of culture.

Sorry this is so short... But the nature of art is never an excuse (in my mind) to stop the sharing of, what essentially amounts to culture. Regardless of it being video game art, or not, all art is part of a greater... collection? That makes up the culture of a time, of a community. And culture should always be Free.

[Mac_Fife]

But the nature of art is never an excuse (in my mind) to stop the sharing of, what essentially amounts to culture.

You may find that copyright law doesn't always agree with you but that's another subject

Just to be clear, here (because I realise it's maybe not coming across): I'm not setting out to try to influence how anyone licenses their own work - What I'm trying to do is explore what the downstream consequences might be of how Cyan might license their content, because that will directly affect how "free" fan artists are to reuse those artefacts. And the "freedoms" could include the right to monetize derivatives (mentioned earlier by Branan) or the right to limit the use of derivatives.

So, is an SA clause "permissive" or "restrictive"? While the viral nature of SA ensures the continuity of the freedoms presumably granted by the originator, it is permanently bound; CC BY-SA cannot be combined with CC BY-NC-SA in a derivative. Is that likely to be a problem?

[branan]

Well, that same thing could be said about the GPL, and Cyan ultimately settled on using that license.

Perhaps Cyan could release the whole collection of assets under a viral license, yet still release a set of "core" assets (D'ni textures, lamps, levers, nexus pedestals, etc) under a license that doesn't have a viral requirement. The idea would be to give artists who aren't comfortable licensing their Age under a CC license just enough content to look "integrated", while still forcing anyone who bases their work more closely on Cyan's to share with the rest of the community.

I have a certain amount of ideological objection to that compromise*, but it seems practical. Does this seem like a "best of both worlds" idea to anybody else?

* I guess I wouldn't consider it a compromise if I didn't have some objection

[Hoikas]

I am no content developer; however, here are my thoughts on the issue... The abbreviated version, anyway.

While I would prefer branan's initial suggestion of licensing all the assets under the GPL, I would also be happy to see it all licensed under BY-NC-SA. I say "see it all licensed" a certain way for simplicity and clairty's sake. Less work for Cyan, less confusion for content developers who wouldn't want to have to think about two licenses.

[Hoikas]

Shameless bump.

After doing a lot of server work this weekend, it has dawned on me how important it is for clients to have the same content (PRP files). Plasma's state tracking system is incredibly complex, and different clients having different data sets would be a bad thing (TM). Given the difficulties we're seeing with the patcher, it would be very nice if we at the very least had permission to redistribute the binary PRP resources from our shards' file servers. From there, perhaps we can continue a dialog with Cyan about what kind of modifications and/or access to their content/resources would be acceptable. Of course, if Cyan opts not to enter into such a discussion, I would be highly unsurprised if their content was disassembled and made freely available in ways that they would prefer it not to be.

On a slightly more critical note, it's been almost a year since the code was released and there's been practically no dialogue on content licensing... Given that Cyan's content is at the core of the Uru universe, no comment at all (not even an "it will never be yours to use! We spent too much money on it!") makes the situation seem like Cyan either doesn't care [in the context of fan shards or in general--take your pick].

[JWPlatt]

I think we all share your goals. There have been two events that have guided us on what Cyan Worlds is tending toward. 1) We submitted as part of our successful CWE relicensing proposal a second part containing a content licensing proposal, and 2) We recently asked whether shards could serve MOULa data, partly because of the same issues you raise. The content license proposal was not declined, but it was also not put through at that time. No comments were given by Cyan on its merits, but we feel it still warrants consideration. Rights to serve data were somewhat more actively declined, after internal discussion. My impression is that both issues are on the fence, waiting for the right rationale and the right time. But we have to consider that there might be things Cyan is not free to discuss. There's no reason why a solid case can't be presented and considered by Cyan, and we're happy to help further both of these things. Proposals take time and effort, so any help is greatly appreciated.

[Deledrius]

Proposals take time and effort, so any help is greatly appreciated.

What more can we do presently?