next »

[VideroBoy]

I've decided it's time to figure out how I want to license one or two of my projects.

I have a freeware project in the works. I'm going to use separate licences for the code and for the content (graphics, sounds, music, etc.). My game's code is open source. I don't mind people looking at how the game works and putting that in their projects. The content on the other hand I want to be protected, but not so much that it restricts the whole project. I don't want people taking my game's sprites and stuff and putting them in their own projects, but I don't a content licence that would restrict the distribution of the game itself. I just need something to say that my game project "owns" this content.

As far as I can tell, the Creative Commons' answer to this is the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs. However, I'm unsure about the meaning of the "You are free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work" clause (with regards to the non-commercial and no-derivatives clause). Would this mean that someone would be still free to use my game's assets if their project is non-commercial and they do not modify the assets?

Also, I'm probably going to use a mix of my own content and public domain or Creative Commons content (especially with regards to audio). What would be the best way to distinguish the different sets of content (and their licences). Would it be best, or enough, to put the files in separate folders and say which licence applies to which folder?

Note that, given my lack of access to lawyers, I'm reluctant to write up a licence myself.

[Draknek]

My understanding is that NoDerivs means others can't use your content in their game.

[VideroBoy]

My understanding is that NoDerivs means others can't use your content in their game.

Huh. I was under the impression that NoDerivs meant they can't create content using my content as a base. Sprite edits for example.

I might need to go through the whole Legal Code version.

[Booger]

I'll just put an engine-license.txt and assets-license.txt

Usually the engine license is a copy-paste from the engine maker (which are usually copy-paste from GPL license).

For assets-license just list what the assets are, who made them, and the corresponding CC license.

It's a freeware games... don't sweat it 

[flavio]

The content on the other hand I want to be protected, but not so much that it restricts the whole project. I don't want people taking my game's sprites and stuff and putting them in their own projects, but I don't a content licence that would restrict the distribution of the game itself. I just need something to say that my game project "owns" this content.

Your assets are under your control, so you can do whatever you want with them. You'll never have problems in order to distribute your game (if you'll break your license, you can change it). Because of copyright you don't need to protect your assets with a license. So, if you don't give a license to your assets, people can't do anything with them.

As far as I can tell, the Creative Commons' answer to this is the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs.

Hmmm. With this license people can redistribute your assets, without it they can't. So if you want people allowed to redistribute, yes, use this license.

Huh. I was under the impression that NoDerivs meant they can't create content using my content as a base. Sprite edits for example.

I agree.

[VideroBoy]

As far as I can tell, the Creative Commons' answer to this is the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs.

Hmmm. With this license people can redistribute your assets, without it they can't. So if you want people allowed to redistribute, yes, use this license.

When you say redistribute, you mean separately from my game right?

And I was just starting to wander what the difference between Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs and vanilla copyright was.

[Evan McClane]

A copyright would probably be better than a CC-BY-NC-ND license, or any CC license, because people can still redistribute the work with a CC license.  That's why it's Creative Commons.

[flavio]

When you say redistribute, you mean separately from my game right?

It depends on you. You are the only one who can determine what kind of operations people can do. If you want to allow people to redistribute assets, give them the CC license. Otherwise, don't do it.

A copyright would probably be better than a CC-BY-NC-ND license, or any CC license, because people can still redistribute the work with a CC license.  That's why it's Creative Commons.

I agree. Specifically, if you look at the informal version of the license (the link refers to by license as an example), the first clause allows you to distribute stuff (more formally, it's regulated by clauses 3, 4 and so on).

However you can look at work made by people that had already faced that problem, for example here.

[Poplicola]

I'm not sure if this directly answers your question, but this blog post has a lot of good info on the legalese of protecting your assets in a video game: http://www.gamespy.com/articles/113/1138708p1.html

Hope that helps..

[Raptor85]

Make 2 separate packages, license the game engine BSD/GPL/whateverfloatsyourboat and have a "engine source download".  For your game, use any standard commercial license. Just because it's free doesn't mean the content is freely usable, if you want people to be allowed to distribute it add to the license that the package may be redistributed if it is not altered in any way.  Just because you license your engine one way doesn't mean YOU have to comply to it in releasing the binary version, you can release the same thing twice under two different licenses.

For a company doing something similar, look at ID Software and the quake2/3 engines. The games are still commercial games, even if they released them free to play you wouldn't be allowed to use their assets in other products, the engines are GPL however, and can be freely used by anyone.