Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: (NOT) GPL texture packs  (Read 16471 times)
spirit
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 16


chickening out already?


WWW
« on: February 20, 2007, 05:48:34 pm »

Does anyone in here know of good-looking GPL'ed texture packs so one can make maps that comply to the OA license and may be included with OA?

Note that I'm not talking of digicam photos of walls but of ready-to-use game texture-sets.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 05:20:20 pm by leileilol » Logged

spirit
spirit
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 16


chickening out already?


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2007, 12:25:27 am »

In the good old tradition of answering to ones own posts:

A friend of mine has just made a texture set and I convinced him to publish his stuff under the GPL.

Impressions:


It's called broar_tex1 and you can get it >> at his website <<.
Logged

spirit
fromhell
Administrator
GET A LIFE!
**********

Cakes 31
Posts: 14479



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2007, 05:57:25 am »

Looks derived from Quake3 material (especially that gauntlet award splattered all over)

I don't trust it.
Logged

asking when OA3 will be done won't get OA3 done.
Progress of OA3 currently occurs behind closed doors alone

I do not provide technical support either.

new code development on github
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2007, 06:41:15 am »

Not to mention that this:

Code:
You may of course use these textures for your maps, no matter whether the rest of your map
    is released under the GPL or not. You may also mix these textures with non-GPL textures in your
    map, of course.

violates the terms of the GPL.  Period.  Re-read section 2.b. of the GPL

End of discussion.
Logged

sago007
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 61
Posts: 1648


Open Arena Developer


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2007, 09:02:35 am »

violates the terms of the GPL.  Period.  Re-read section 2.b. of the GPL

End of discussion.
The author may violate the GPL as much as he wants (as long as he is the only auther and that he does not take away any of your rights).

Only a court can end the discussion, we can only discuss.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 09:04:31 am by sago007 » Logged

There are nothing offending in my posts.
spirit
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 16


chickening out already?


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2007, 10:34:13 am »

On the license issue (GPL 2.b):
I know the GPL end especially 2.b, that's why that sentence is there. It was my intention to give additonal freedom to the people using these textures and to allow them to use them for their maps, no matter if they want to make their .map-files available to the world (what few people would do).

But I see you point because that license is not a clean GPL then, and I share your idea of being picky about licenses. There's no point in making a GPL game if it's not really GPL, (I thought giving additional freedom was always good with the GPL but I'll reread it as you suggested to find out.) and I am willing to fix this situation for you by changing this sentence/the license.

What solutions would you suggest to this problem? Could it be a solution to offer these textures in a dual-license like "take them under the terms of the GPL or some CC license"? (In the same way it has been done with quake3, libqt and many other popular software.)

On the accuse of "derived from q3 material":
I'll talk to him over that gauntlet symbol but I can assure that none of the other stuff is derived from any quake material. I know him and was there when he made the textures from digicam photos.

But don't use it if you don't trust it, it's up to you of course. I'll report back when I know about that gauntlet thingie.

And a last thing for some people in here to think about, please: these textures and the license were intended to be a gift especially to the OA community (they had been CC-licensed if I hadn't voted for GPL and showed OA to that guy) and I think the tone of some of the replies here just doesn't fit in this context. Yes, I'm talking about your "period" and "end of discussion"-attitide here.  This won't get us anywhere.

EDIT:
Quote
I thought giving additional freedom was always good with the GPL but I'll reread it as you suggested to find out.
I was wrong with this, reread GPL and didnt't find any statements on addtional freedom.

EDIT2: An idead on the "derived"-accuse: we could post the high-res images from which the textures were made if that would convince you.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 12:28:17 pm by spirit » Logged

spirit
spirit
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 16


chickening out already?


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2007, 01:39:05 pm »

Talked to broar, he decided to change the license to Creative Commons "Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5".
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

Should be no problem to use that for OA someone told me, but that's not my cup of tea.
Logged

spirit
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2007, 02:49:40 pm »

from GNU:
Quote
Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license

    This is a copyleft free license meant for artistic works and entertainment works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.

    Please see additional comments about Creative Commons licenses just above.

Gifts are one thing, gifts we can't use, and gifts that imply it is alright to break the GPL are another.
Logged

spirit
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 16


chickening out already?


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2007, 04:50:45 pm »

What are you trying to tell me with that quote? We are not using the CC license for software or documentation, but I'm getting tired of this license shit anyways.

Obviously, we can't pulish them under the GPL only because this would make it impossible for other mappers to use them. If I add a sentence to allow this, we seem to brake the GPL. What should we do in your opinion?

You didn't suggest any solution, noone commented on the dual-license idea and we prefer to make textures, not read licenses all day long.

Apart from that: I can assure your that I did in no way intend to imply that "it is OK to brake the GPL" by posting a texture pack on your site.

And I was obviously not trying to make you useless gifts (why should I?). That may have been what I did (judge this by yourself, please. see above.), but even if I did so, I did not do it intentionally. And that's what the tone in here suggests.

Just forget about it. You may or may not be able to use these textures under the license they are now available under. I don't know whether it's incompatible with the GPL or not, neither do I care anymore.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 04:54:34 pm by spirit » Logged

spirit
baud123
Nub


Cakes 2
Posts: 23

Member


« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2007, 05:43:45 pm »

As you were told, other-than-GPL is not accepted for the open arena project and you've been given the statement about incompatibility between CC-by-sa and GPL :/ (which applies whatever the content).

To avoid these difficulties, dual licensing is possible, which is in the hands of the copyright-owner (hence the person who did it on its own or in a team).
AFAIC, I use dual (and even quadruple licensing) at http://cookerspot.tuxfamily.org/wikka.php?wakka=WikiLicense to enable anyone to contribute to wikipedia (GFDL) or GPL projects with our content...

This subject keeps coming back, just keep it simple reading and understanding (a bit at least) the licenses used, not inventing new licenses when existing ones are suficient (eventually using multiple licensing at the choice of the user).

This applies, of course, to genuine work, whose author did not derive work  from others under different licensing (which is yet another topic I do not comment here), hence the term "copyright-owner".

I hope I kept it simple enough :/
Logged
spirit
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 16


chickening out already?


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2007, 06:05:11 pm »

Yes, that post makes things clear and sounds good: dual-licensing is the way to go here. Thanks for your answer.

On the "copyright-owner"-issue: I asked Carmack and he considers our use of that humiliation logo "well within fair use". That'S no lega statement of course and I would like to point out however that this shoud NOT be considered an invitation for anyone to ask him about media usage in the future.

EDIT: Talked it over with broar, license will be changed to dual-license: GPL or the CC license name above. Simply don't use the ones with the humiliation-logo if you don't like them. That's all we can do for you.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 06:29:19 pm by spirit » Logged

spirit
Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2007, 06:28:54 pm »

Quote
violates the terms of the GPL.  Period.  Re-read section 2.b. of the GPL

End of discussion.

Wow man comon, I mean, he seems like he's just trying to help, why be such a bitch about it? You're always quick to diss people. Licensing issues or not, I doubt he did it on purpose and even if he did you'd be smart enough to just not use it. This poor guy just came out of nowhere trying to show you guys something and you're so quick to put him down. I'm not saying you should use what he gave you, just try and be a little nicer, but hey I'm no one to tell you that, just what I think.

And spirit, that last post of yours might get its share of doubts, you contacted carmack and he said it was okay, but then you tell us not to contact him ourselves? I actually believe you at first until I heard that last bit, I mean, I don't know what to believe, maybe you can show us a log of the conversation? Also, were you clear to him? What if he simply thought you were making texture packs for Quake 3?

Hell I don't know shit about all these licensing issues and they just make me sick, the dual licensing thing baud123 mentioned seems pretty cool though.
Logged
spirit
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 16


chickening out already?


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2007, 06:35:45 pm »

@blanky: I sent you Carmacks Email including full headers via PM. It should explain my note above.

Please do not publish it here or anywhere, I think mails a person sends to you in the believe that only you will read it are not to be published on the internet. Thank you.

License will be changed as suggested, see my post above.

EDIT: Done, textures now dual-licensed. Bye.

And you may rest assured that we will never dare to affront you with such gifts again.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 01:16:09 pm by spirit » Logged

spirit
Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2007, 07:39:09 pm »

Ah okay I see, looks legit enough. I wasn't really questioning you, just letting you know that you might have gotten doubts from the people here.
Logged
fromhell
Administrator
GET A LIFE!
**********

Cakes 31
Posts: 14479



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2007, 08:56:10 pm »

Carmack's just a programmer. He doesn't really take control over trademark designs iirc. We still can't risk using it.
Logged

asking when OA3 will be done won't get OA3 done.
Progress of OA3 currently occurs behind closed doors alone

I do not provide technical support either.

new code development on github
Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2007, 09:11:33 pm »

Yeah I understand.
Logged
hans
THIS ONE POST HERE SHOULD DO IT.


Cakes 0
Posts: 1


« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2007, 10:32:53 pm »

Carmack's just a programmer.

LOL!
Logged
kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2007, 04:21:49 pm »

Having the textures as GPL, should not restrict mappers freedom to choose a different license all it means is that OpenArena will not support non-GPL maps in the releases(ie they wont come with OpenArena by default).

However if you do decide not to use the GPL license then it also means the textures cannot not be supported by OpenArena(ie they wont be there by default).

Maps & textures that dont use the GPL license can still be used with OpenArena. All it means is they wont be released by default with it.
Logged
Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2007, 06:09:42 pm »

kit89 always there to clarify GPL issues :')
Logged
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2007, 10:19:20 pm »

Having the textures as GPL, should not restrict mappers freedom to choose a different license all it means is that OpenArena will not support non-GPL maps in the releases(ie they wont come with OpenArena by default).

Wrong.

Quote
2.b.) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

Remove the word program, insert the word texture.  Call me a bitch all you want, but I am being far more polite than a copyright lawyer will be.
Logged

Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2007, 11:01:18 pm »

Oh yeah, you're right, dmn_clown. I read that wrong. At least, I think you're right, I'm no license expert Sad
Logged
kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2007, 01:26:51 am »

Quote
Quote
2.b.) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

Remove the word program, insert the word texture.  Call me a bitch all you want, but I am being far more polite than a copyright lawyer will be.

Ah, your right my mistake.

I do have a question.

Everything in OpenArena is GPL'ed.

Now if "mappers" create a map that use GPL textures does it mean that the map is now GPL?
If so how does Blender get round this with the .blend as when this is created it is not under the GPL, nor any executable created by the GE.

I think the real question is that if you create a map does it really contain the textures? Cause its not derived from the texture.
Logged
fromhell
Administrator
GET A LIFE!
**********

Cakes 31
Posts: 14479



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2007, 01:49:13 am »

I think the real question is that if you create a map does it really contain the textures? Cause its not derived from the texture.

Textures have been externally linked since Quake2, so no
Logged

asking when OA3 will be done won't get OA3 done.
Progress of OA3 currently occurs behind closed doors alone

I do not provide technical support either.

new code development on github
kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2007, 02:36:59 am »

I just noticed something:

Quote
2.b.) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License

This part of the license states "Program" and so anything that is a "Program" must follow this. However one could argue that a Texture is not a Program and so this part of the license is null.

Quote
Textures have been externally linked since Quake2, so no

So with that a map that uses GPL'ed textures, (as long as its not distributed with), could be under a different license as the "map" does not contain or derived from the texture.

So yes the textures could be GPL'ed, maps could still use them but cannot be distributed with the textures unless under the GPL. And seeing how OpenArena will only distribute maps under the GPL with the game. It follows the license.

But maps that are not released with OpenArena but can run on OpenArena can be under another license(As long as the other license does not break other parts of the GPL).

Thats my thinking of it anyway. Wink
Logged
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2007, 12:35:54 pm »

This part of the license states "Program" and so anything that is a "Program" must follow this. However one could argue that a Texture is not a Program and so this part of the license is null.

Any copyright lawyer would rip that argument to shreds, please stop trying to nullify the terms of the GPL to fit your particular situation.  The terms of the license are clear and should be followed.  If you have a problem with it, well the Free Software Foundation is taking public comments and suggestions on the GPLv3, give them suggestions to write a license with terms that fit your situation. 

Logged

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to: