Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

License makes no sense #40

Closed
Aspie96 opened this issue Jan 23, 2021 · 7 comments
Closed

License makes no sense #40

Aspie96 opened this issue Jan 23, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@Aspie96
Copy link

Aspie96 commented Jan 23, 2021

If in doubt, please get in touch. As a rule of thumb I'm fine with anyone
using these spaceships in commercial works, but I am less okay with people
selling the spaceship models directly for commercial gain. Use common sense.

Creative Commons Attribution By 3.0 does allow selling the model itself

@a1studmuffin
Copy link
Owner

a1studmuffin commented Jan 25, 2021 via email

@velniukas
Copy link

If in doubt, please get in touch. As a rule of thumb I'm fine with anyone
using these spaceships in commercial works, but I am less okay with people
selling the spaceship models directly for commercial gain. Use common sense.

Creative Commons Attribution By 3.0 does allow selling the model itself

The license needs to be clearer which version of CC it is - and allows for commercial use according to Tldrlegal https://tldrlegal.com/license/creative-commons-attribution-(cc)

@ldo
Copy link

ldo commented Jan 25, 2021

I have removed the non-Free clause from my version.

@a1studmuffin
Copy link
Owner

The license file says Creative Commons Attribution By 3.0 in it and links to a website with further information. Is that not specific enough? My addenum in the license file about selling content directly isn't enforceable and is just a request - I elaborated on that above. I'm not understanding what needs to be changed.

@FAUSheppy
Copy link

The license is unclear, for example, what happens if I use part of your code as per MIT License to create spaceships looking completely different from the ones generated by this version? You still want to enforce the CC part? What if I take it to make buildings instead? I could bundle your code to make an end user create the actual meshes themselves if I really wanted. (Spigot style)

I mean it probably just isn't enforceable, but still, you are creating a lot of uncertainty here :/

@daarong
Copy link

daarong commented May 27, 2021

FAUSheppy, honestly I don't think he wants to talk about it anymore. He's already said:

"... I'm not going to chase anyone about license usage ..."
"... I'm asking politely ... you're free to ignore my request ..."
"... My addenum in the license file about selling content directly isn't enforceable and is just a request ..."

@a1studmuffin
Copy link
Owner

Exactly this. If anyone feels uncertain about the licensing terms, you're free to not use/extend the software or get written clarification from me for your particular project.

But as stated earlier, I'm not going to be enforcing anything as this is a throwaway project I made for fun with zero monetary value. We can debate licensing edge cases all day, but it's an exercise in academia. Let's focus our time on making awesome stuff instead.

I appreciate people bringing the inconsistencies to my attention and will take note for future projects to avoid any ambiguity, but I won't be changing anything with the license and people are free to reach out if they're concerned about liability of their own works because of this.

Thanks for the feedback all. Procedural generation is fun!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants