Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

CC Factsheet

2013-01-30T16:24:01Z

Greg Alexander Iaio:

Creative Commons (CC) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that develops legal and technical tools used by individuals, cultural, educational, and research institutions, governments, and companies worldwide to overcome barriers to sharing and innovation.

CC licenses and public domain tools are easy to understand and use, with 1) a human-readable deed that simplifies the terms of each license into a few universal icons and non-technical language, 2) lawyer-readable legal text, which has been vetted by a global team of legal experts, and 3) machine-readable code that enables search and discovery via search engines such as Google – lowering the transaction costs normally associated with seeking permission to use works by granting some rights in advance, consistent with the rules of copyright, and making the public domain more accessible.

CC tools constitute a globally-recognized framework, developed in consultation with legal experts and CC affiliate institutions in over 70 jurisdictions. Over 350 million CC-licensed works have been published by their authors on the Internet. The following are examples of CC uses in key sectors, followed by stories by creators leveraging the cultural and economic benefits of CC tools in [[CC_Factsheet#Appendix_A:_Adopter_and_Advocate_Stories|Appendix A]] and descriptions of CC licenses and public domain tools in [[CC_Factsheet#Appendix_B:_Creative_Commons_Licenses_and_Public_Domain_Tools|Appendix B]].

== Government ==
Governments around the world recognize the power of the distributed network to enable growth in scientific, educational, and creative content, resulting in healthy, thriving economies. For instance, in order to stimulate European content markets and maximize the potential of public sector information (PSI), the European Commission launched a public consultation on the EU directive on the re-use of PSI, which aims to remove barriers such as “discriminatory practices, monopoly markets and a lack of transparency” through open policies leveraging tools such as CC’s. Moreover:
* Seventeen national governments <ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Government_use_of_Creative_Commons</ref> employ CC tools for government data, official reports and other media, presidential websites, and educational resources. These include Armenia, Australia, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, South Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States.
* Recognizing that the U.S. public domain has contributed to the country’s rapid growth, third-party contributions to http://www.whitehouse.gov have also been made freely available via CC Attribution (CC BY).<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright</ref>
* The Australian federal government and the United Kingdom have followed suit, requiring CC BY for government data.<ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Government_use_of_Creative_Commons#Australia</ref><ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Government_use_of_Creative_Commons#United_Kingdom</ref>
* The Netherlands implemented the CC0 public domain dedication as their default copyright policy earlier this year, signalling a seriousness about open sharing of public sector information.<ref>http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/copyright</ref>
* International government organizations also use CC, including the European Cultural Foundation, the European Union, Inter-American Development Bank, and the United Nations.<ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Government_use_of_Creative_Commons#Intergovernmental_Organizations</ref>

== Culture ==
CC’s legal and technical tools are playing an increasing role in digital cultural heritage and the growth of the digital economy:
* Europeana, Europe’s digital library, museum and archive, is the first major adopter of the CC-powered Public Domain Mark, which will be used to label millions of out-of-copyright works.
* Flickr contains approximately 160 million CC-licensed photos, establishing it as the Web’s single largest source of CC-licensed content.<ref>http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/</ref>
* Google’s Picasa, Fotopedia, Vimeo, Blip.tv, SoundCloud, Jamendo, the Free Music Archive, and other services host tens of millions of CC-licensed photos, videos, and musical works.
* Films such as Sita Sings the Blues and RiP: A Remix Manifesto use CC licenses to increase dissemination and awareness of important cultural concepts.<ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Sita_Sings_The_Blues</ref><ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/RIP:_A_Remix_Manifesto</ref>
* Major museums, such as the Brooklyn Museum and Powerhouse Museum, have adopted CC to increase public participation in the preservation of works.<ref>http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/copyright.php</ref><ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Powerhouse_Museum,_Sydney</ref>
* Emerging journalism models Propublica,<ref>http://www.propublica.org/about/legal</ref> the Huffington Post Investigative Fund,<ref>http://huffpostfund.org/terms-and-conditions</ref> and Spot.us,<ref>http://spot.us/pages/terms</ref> in addition to traditional channels Al Jazeera<ref>http://cc.aljazeera.net/</ref> and GOOD Magazine,<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/10630</ref> use CC to increase readership, citizen participation, and viral dissemination.
* Major publishers like Bloomsbury<ref>http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/page/About$0020/about</ref> and authors like Cory Doctorow<ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Cory_Doctorow</ref> use CC as part of mixed business models that encourage noncommercial reuse.
* Wikipedia contains 16 million CC-licensed articles in 270 languages (over 3.4 million in English), as the default license for Wikipedia is CC Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA).<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About</ref>
* Wikimedia Commons, the multimedia storehouse for Wikipedia, is one of the premier repositories of free cultural works on the web, currently hosting approximately 7.5 million media files licensed CC BY-SA or equivalent open content license.<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome</ref>

== Education ==
Educational institutions, organizations, and individuals (teachers and learners) use CC tools to overcome the legal and technical restrictions that prevent educational resources from being accessible, adaptable, interoperable, and discoverable.
* Connexions, a repository for Open Educational Resources (OER), offers over 17,000 reusable, customizable learning modules, licensed CC Attribution (CC BY).<ref>http://cnx.org/</ref>
* The Open CourseWare movement has taken off around the world, powered by CC licenses. Materials from 2,000 MIT courses are available for reuse, translation, and remix under the CC Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license (CC BY-NC-SA); nearly 800 MIT OCW courses have been translated into other languages.<ref>http://ocw.mit.edu/</ref>
* The Open Courseware Consortium contains over 230 global member institutions and affiliates, including the African Virtual University, Japan OCW Consortium, Open University Netherlands, and China Open Resources for Education.<ref>http://www.ocwconsortium.org/members/members</ref>
* Commercial textbook publisher, Flat World Knowledge, incorporates CC licensing into the core of its business model, offering free online access and customizability to CC-licensed open textbooks and inexpensive on-demand printing.<ref>http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/authors</ref>

== Research ==
Scientists and research institutions seeking to overcome the legal and technical barriers to sharing and building on data and knowledge are using CC tools, maximizing potential on investments and increasing scientific innovation.
* GlaxoSmithKline is one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, and has waived all copyright restrictions to its malarial data set via the CC0 public domain dedication, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria.<ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/GlaxoSmithKline</ref>
* Personal Genome Project, a pioneer in the emerging field of personal genomics technology, released a large data set containing genomic sequences for ten individuals using the CC0 public domain dedication; next 1,000 participants will be selected.<ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Personal_Genome_Project</ref>
* Sage Commons is a public resource and information platform for scientists, research foundations, and research institutions to share and develop human disease and biological research; it will enable the CC0 public domain dedication as an option for waiving copyright restrictions to data hosted in the network.<ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Sage_Commons</ref>
* There are over 1,100 CC-licensed Open Access journals.<ref>http://www.doaj.org/</ref> Studies across more than a dozen disciplines show that Open Access articles are cited 50-250% more often than non-Open Access articles published in the same issues of the same journals.<ref>http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html</ref>
* The Public Library of Science (PLoS), one of the world’s largest publishers of open access journals, publishes all content in its seven scientific journals under CC Attribution (CC BY); PLoS has received submissions from over 60,000 authors and is on track to being the largest peer-reviewed journal in the world.<ref>http://www.plos.org/</ref>

== Creative Commons ongoing development ==
Creative Commons develops, stewards, and promotes legal and technical tools that expand the interoperable commons and enhance creativity and innovation. Current priorities include:
* Supporting the public domain, building on the CC0 public domain dedication (released 2009) and the Public Domain Mark (released 2010), especially policy and technology work in the areas of cultural heritage, open data, and public sector information.
* Development of metadata, search, and registry technologies facilitating provenance, discovery, and reuse, increasing the effective size and value of the commons and solving domain-specific challenges in open education, cultural heritage, science, and more.
* Policy work with funders, NGOs, governments, universities, web platform companies and communities, and other institutions to increase effectiveness of funding and align outcomes with public good and institutional missions.
* Scaling our global network of affiliates and other advocates and experts in order to continue to develop tools that interoperate globally and to effectively increase adoption and understanding worldwide.

== When CC tools are not appropriate ==
* CC licenses are not recommended for software – existing free/open source software licenses serve the purpose of building an interoperable commons in that domain.<ref>http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html</ref>
* It may not be possible to release works under one of the CC licenses if you do not control all of the necessary rights.<ref>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing</ref>
* Copyright holders with existing revenue streams from traditional licensing or statutory collections should carefully weigh potential impact of CC licensing on those revenues.

== Appendix A: Adopter and Advocate Stories ==

“Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom has been through more printings than I can keep track of, been translated into more languages than I know, and has been downloaded more than 750,000 times (as of 2007) from my site alone (I don’t know the total number of downloads, because, of course, anyone is free to redistribute it). Creative Commons licenses have allowed my work to spread far and wide, into corners of the world I never could have reached. My readers have made innumerable technical remixes, fan-fic installments, fan-art drawings, songs, translations and other fun and inspiring creative works from mine, each time humbling and inspiring me (and enriching me!). As Tim O’Reilly says, my problem is not piracy, it’s obscurity, and CC licenses turn my books into dandelion seeds, able to blow in the wind and find every crack in every sidewalk, sprouting up in unexpected places. Each seed is a possibility, an opportunity for someone out there to buy a physical copy of the book, to commission work from me, to bring me in for a speech. CC lets me be financially successful, but it also lets me attain artistic and ethical success. Ethical in the sense that CC licenses give my readers a legal framework to do what readers have always done in meatspace: pass the works they love back and forth, telling each other stories the way humans do. Artistic because we live in the era of copying, the era when restricting copying is a fool’s errand, and by CC gives me an artistic framework to embrace copying rather than damning it. Writers all over the world are adopting CC licenses, creating an artistic movement that treats copying as a feature, not a bug.” '''– Cory Doctorow, NYTimes bestselling author and BoingBoing editor/blogger'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7774</ref>

“But is something so compelling about the Creative Commons license, the idea that you could attach it to a piece of art you had made and declare your intentions – please, share my music, put it in a remix, make it into a music video. I was thrilled and emboldened by the idea that I could give my songs legs, so that they could walk around the world and find their way into places I would never dream of sending them. I immediately started licensing my songs with CC, and a year later I quit my job to create music full time. My growing audience started to feed back to me things they had created based on my music: videos, artwork, remixes, card games, coloring books. I long ago lost track of this torrent of fan-made stuff, and of course I’ll never know how many people simply shared my music with friends, but there’s no question in my mind that Creative Commons is a big part of why I’m now able to make a living this way. With Creative Commons, the act of creation becomes not the end, but the beginning of a creative process that links complete strangers together in collaboration. To me it’s a deeply satisfying and beautiful vision of what art and culture can be.” '''– Jonathan Coulton, Singer and songwriter'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/10753</ref>

“We have people working to build free knowledge around the world, collaborating mostly informally. Some see themselves as part of one or more movements and communities, others just want to share and collaborate. Creative Commons is about building infrastructure for a new kind of culture — one that is both a folk culture, and wildly more sophisticated than anything before it. How much better would the world be if we allow education, entertainment, government, science and more to be transformed by the web? If we do not support Creative Commons, the realization of these dreams about what the Internet can and should become are at risk.” '''– Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/11898</ref>

“A large part of embracing free culture is accepting the fact that you are forsaking control in exchange for something greater – the empowerment of the creative community. This means that you never quite know where things will lead. When launching our repository, we had thought that it would be a key resource for anyone producing content on the war and that it would primarily be used by other news organisations and documentary filmmakers. What we saw was both surprising and delightful. Soon after posting our first video, Wikipedia editors had extracted images to enhance the encyclopedia entries on the War on Gaza. Soon thereafter educators, filmmakers, video game developers, aid agencies and music video producers all used and built upon our footage.” '''– Mohamed Nanabhay, Head of Online, Al Jazeera English'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/18213</ref>

“After spending seven years building massive models of human disease it becomes clear to me that no single company, not even one as big as Merck, could possibly gather and integrate enough information to make the decisions we need to make about when and how to treat something as complicated as cancer or Alzheimer’s, or for that matter, cardiovascular disease. It was going to take a collaborative effort. I saw inspiration in Wikipedia, in GNU/Linux, in systems that were capable of scaling far beyond the capacity of a single institution. We’re working on the construction of a scalable, open commons for biological research. What Creative Commons is doing to build scalable communities who share – whether it’s creative works like photographs, stem cells, patents, or massive biological data like we’re doing at Sage – is essential infrastructure for the Web.” '''– Stephen Friend, President, CEO, and Co-founder of Sage'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/19646</ref>

“Why is Creative Commons so helpful and important? Because it provides a balanced, sane alternative to the madly out-of-whack copyright system I deal with every day. I am an academic librarian and copyright specialist who teaches faculty, students, librarians, archivists and others about their rights as creators and their rights as users. In the United States alone, plummeting budgets and rising costs for both K-12 and higher education are making it harder for students and teachers to access the quality educational resources they need. Until recently, most educational content was locked behind digital paywalls or hidden in print books, and the free stuff you could find online was often unreliable. Now, the pool of high quality open educational resources is growing every day, with open textbooks, open courseware, and other experimental projects popping up all the time.” '''– Molly Kleinman, Special Assistant to the Dean of Libraries, University of Michigan'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/19158</ref>

“Copyright laws solved one problem for a prior era, a way of marking a piece of content to indicate who the creator (or publisher) is. But, if you want to actually USE that content, under standard copyright law you or your lawyer send a letter, you get back a license agreement, you agree to terms, and you get rights to reuse the content. Every single use requires a new agreement. As they say, that doesn’t scale. The genius of Creative Commons is a simple, universal way to let people know what they can do with your content without having to bother you each time. With the Internet, we’ve found that a whole class of uses of creative material makes sense, and with a Creative Commons license you can clearly tell people what it is they can do. What is impressive about Creative Commons is that it scales. Public.Resource.Org, the non-profit I run, has published a boatload of content we get from the U.S. government: 90 million pages of documents, 1,000 videos, and a few handfuls of photographs. With the Creative Commons CC Zero and Public Domain tools, we have an easy way of telling people that they don’t have to ask permission to use this information.” '''– Carl Malamud, Founder of Public.Resource.Org'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/18664</ref>

“Indaba Music is a community of over 350,000 musicians from 185 countries who create music together in online recording sessions. As you might surmise from this concept, Indaba Music leverages Creative Commons licensing in a number of ways, each meaningful to our business and to the community we have cultivated. For instance, the Indaba Music Sessions are online projects in which musicians come together to combine tracks recorded in different places into single pieces of music. Every file that is uploaded to a session can be explicitly licensed under Creative Commons so musicians have control over how their music is used by those with whom they collaborate. Indaba Music Contests are another great example of how Creative Commons has continuously broken down barriers in music. We have run several collaborative contests in which our entire community was able to remix and re-imagine such artists as The Roots, Rivers Cuomo, John Legend, and The Crystal Method with all remixes licensed under Creative Commons. Our Creative Commons Clips Library is the newest CC addition to Indaba Music. Anyone can search thousands of CC licensed audio clips generated by professional musicians for Indaba Music. CC licensing has opened up possibilities that never before existed, and has created an environment full of openness, collaboration, and sharing.” '''– Daniel Zaccagnino and Matthew Siegel, Co-founders, Indaba Music'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/19365</ref>

“We are on the cusp of an explosive revolution in human knowledge and culture. We now have the tools and the global infrastructure to let the billions of humans on Earth collaboratively create their own entertainment and reference works: films, textbooks, images, and music. Regular people, working together, are smashing apart the short-sighted, curmudgeonly cultural framework of micropayments, IP portfolios, walled gardens, and dot-com data silos to free up information for everyone to enjoy, use, and share. I truly believe that within a generation we can open the world’s knowledge to all of its inhabitants and reduce or eliminate the misery caused by lack of access to information. And Creative Commons is a crucial part of the cultural compact that makes that revolution possible. Free Culture licenses, like those from Creative Commons, are a promise between global collaborators that indeed we are working for the good of all. Creative Commons licenses tell readers and listeners that they, too, can be participants in a global community of creators.” '''– Evan Prodromou, Writer, programmer, and entrepreneur'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7739</ref>

“It was at this juncture that we hit upon the Creative Commons licensing model as one that would help us achieve many of our aims of flexibility, scalability and being able to help catalyse our mission of a book in every child's hands. In particular, three things stood out – a shared value system of sharing and openness, a community that was deeply embedded in these ideals and, from our perspective, it was scalable because it allowed us to license content to multiple organizations and individuals, both known and unknown, with a one time effort of releasing them under a Creative Commons license as opposed to the traditional model which involves time consuming negotiations and discussions with each known organization or individual who wants to use our content. We license entire books under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses, we license our illustrations similarly and even photographs and other publicity material too. Over the last year we have been building the foundations for a social publishing model – where we curate communities that are passionate about reading and help us create content. Such a model rests on the idea of a participatory culture and an essential ingredient is a permissive licensing strategy – Creative Commons licenses offers us this, a large community with shared values and an ecosystem to tap in to.” '''– Gautam John, Pratham Books'''<ref>https://creativecommons.net/superheroes/gautam-john/</ref>

“Figuring out how to get maximum protection for a photograph you take is easy. One simply does nothing -- in most countries a creative work is automatically subject to default copyright law. If one wants to emphasize this one can add a copyright notice, but this is not required. Maximum restriction is the default. Figuring out how to let other people build upon one's creative work is actually much harder. In fact, without Creative Commons there is no easy way to do so. Creative Commons provides a clear, effective way for each of us to choose to share our creative work when we want to, dramatically reducing the barriers to voluntary sharing. It provides legally enforceable mechanisms that live happily alongside the default of maximum restriction of copyright law. Creative Commons empowers creators to choose how our works are used and shared as well as protected. The ability to share our creative work easily is an important complement to the traditional ability to restrict their use. It's important for individuals and it's important for society. There is no doubt that the voluntary sharing of effort can produce immense civic, social, and individual value. Voluntary collaboration, based on shared resources, shared data and shared creative work provides new tools for solving complex problems. By making voluntary sharing easy, Creative Commons provides new avenues for individual choice and human interaction.” '''– Mitchell Baker, Chairperson of the Mozilla Foundation'''<ref>https://creativecommons.net/superheroes/mitchell-baker/</ref>

“The flexibility afforded by a CC-BY license allows for materials to be adapted quickly. I hear that a typical textbook revision works on a 7-year cycle. Curriki materials can be updated and “published” in a matter of seconds and the community can correct any content errors just as quickly. However, OER allows teachers to freely adapt materials to best fit their pedagogical and cultural needs. Furthermore, by creating or uploading such materials onto a public repository, teachers will no longer need to work in isolation, continuously ‘re-inventing the wheel.’ ” '''– Christine Mytko, Educator and Lead Science Reviewer at Curriki'''<ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/22899</ref>

“A lot of educators and creators in the education space are creating different types of content and curriculum and want to share them. They think that other people can just pick them up and take them, but they don’t realize they’re most likely locked up under copyright. Creative Commons is the foundation for open education. Without flexible licensing there’s no way to determine which materials are shareable, adaptable, reusable, and localizable.” '''– Cathy Casserly, Vice President for Innovation and Open Networks and Senior Partner at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching''' <ref>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/22255</ref>

== Appendix B: Creative Commons Licenses and Public Domain Tools ==

'''''Attribution (CC BY)''''' This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

'''''Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)''''' This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to “copyleft” free and open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. This is the license used by Wikipedia, and is recommended for materials that would benefit from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects.

'''''Attribution-NoDerivatives (CC BY-ND)''''' This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.

'''''Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)''''' This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

'''''Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA)''''' This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.

'''''Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND)''''' This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

'''''CC0 Public Domain Dedication''''' CC0 enables owners of copyright-protected content to waive copyright interests in their works and thereby place them as completely as possible in the public domain, so that others may freely build upon, enhance and reuse the works for any purposes without restriction under copyright. In contrast to CC’s licenses that allow copyright holders to choose from a range of permissions while retaining their copyright, CC0 empowers yet another choice altogether – the choice to opt out of copyright and the exclusive rights it automatically grants to creators.

'''''Public Domain Mark''''' Public Domain Mark (PDM) is a tool that allows works already in the public domain to be marked and tagged in a way that clearly communicates the work’s public domain status, and allows it to be easily discoverable. The PDM is not a legal instrument like CC0 or the CC licenses — it can only be used to label a work with information about its public domain status, not change a work’s current status under copyright. However, just like CC0 and CC licenses, PDM has a metadata-supported deed and is machine readable, allowing works tagged with PDM to be findable on the Internet.

[http://okupansi.blogspot.com/2013/01/mau-bikin-website-hosting-murah-abizz.html Mau Bikin Website + Hosting Murah AbizZ? Ke Rajawebhost.com aja!]
[http://menshealthmedia.blogspot.com/ Mens Health]
<references />

Games using CC licensed assets

2013-01-30T16:20:56Z

Greg Alexander Iaio:

Some examples to be added at http://creativecommons.org/tag/video-game ([http://friv.5ire.com/ friv games])

http://freegamedev.net/wiki/Complete_open_source_games lists a number of games, some with CC licensed assets, some assets under software licenses.

http://freegamedev.net/wiki/Art_licensing_guide looks interesting.

Similarly, some comments on this at http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Games/Upstream#Source

==Go Ollie==
* http://www.tweeler.com/index.php?PAGE=goollie_info&PLATFORM=linux&CATEGORY=commercial&GENRE=all
* Found via http://identi.ca/notice/24239197 -- "logos are nonfree but can be disabled. Art is all free, IIRC CC BY SA, music is vorbis and code is GPL"
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==LinCity NG==
* http://lincity-ng.berlios.de/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: GPL or CC BY-SA (dual license)

==REMIX THIS GAME==
* http://dto.github.com/notebook/remix-this-game.html
* [http://okupansi.blogspot.com/ Mau Bikin Website + Hosting Murah AbizZ? Ke Rajawebhost.com aja!]
* Found via http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/07/18/227243/Remix-This-Game-mdash-a-Free-Software-Experiment
* Software license: GPLv3
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==Scorched 3D==
* http://www.scorched3d.co.uk/
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==Scourge==
* http://scourgeweb.org/tiki-index.php
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: Mostly CC BY-SA, with exceptions (see [http://scourgeweb.org/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=1280&topics_threshold=0&topics_offset=12&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&topics_find=&forumId=3 this discussion])

==SuperTux==
* http://supertux.org
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: GPL or CC BY-SA (dual license)

==Tremulous==
* http://tremulous.net/
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==Yo Frankie==
* http://yofrankie.org
* Particularly interesting for using the blender game engine...
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY
* [http://jogos-dapollypocket.org/ jogos da polly]
* [http://jogosdemeninass.org/ jogos de meninas]
* [http://wallputih.blogspot.com/2012/09/gemscool.html gemscool]
* [http://jogosdabarbies.org/ jogos da barbie]
* [http://jogosde-moto.org/ jogos de moto]
* [http://coolmathgames-forkids.org cool math games]

4.0/Games 3d printing and functional content

2012-11-18T13:48:11Z

Greg Alexander Iaio:

= Background =

The purpose of this page is to collect thoughts on issues that affect
games and projects that span the domains of cultural and
functional/software works. There are actually quite a few categories
of works that cross this domain, but games, as creative works that *by
necessity* combine code and artwork together, perhaps expose and
encounter some of these issues the most clearly. However games are
not the only area that contain this overlap; for example, 3d printing
is an emerging medium where the line between funtional and cultural is
either blurred or interwoven. It's likely that as the spaces of free
software and free culture (ideally) grow, we'll continue to see more
and more examples of this overlap.

Most of this wiki page will involve issues of the code/functional and
cultural works overlap, but some bits at the end will cover some other
issues raised by speaking with members of the free software gaming
community.

== Background on separation of functional/software and cultural layers ==

As further background, traditionally we've held a fairly clear
division between the free culture and free software spaces. This
division is partly because it's a useful distinction, and partly a
historic one. (The FSF has held this position or something like it
for a long time; alluded to slightly on their
[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-functional-data distribution guidelines about non-functional data].)

It looks something like:

.----------.
| CONTENT |
+----------+
| CODE |
'----------'

In a game context, content might be art, music, story, plain character
descriptions. Code would be the game engine, game scripting, etc.

In a free-as-in-freedom type environment the former would be under
free culture and the user freedom respecting subset of Creative
Commons licenses, and code would be free software licenses such as
MIT/BSD or the GPL.

One of the other results of this (licensing) division though is that
you can also have one half of this layer be proprietary and the other
be free-as-in-freedom. So, for example, the first person shooter
Quake was released under the GPL but the game content was kept
proprietary. Likewise, it's possible that someone could have a game
whose assets were released completely as free cultural works but the
software wasn't; this hasn't seemed to have happened (but some artists
have expressed concern about it). But outside of games, people play
CC licensed content in proprietary media players or view them in
proprietary browsers all the time.

In general, the software/content division in many areas works just
fine as separate layers. But sometimes there is a certain kind of
content that spans both. For example say you have a game that's using
CC BY-SA content and the GPL for the engine. In this you have level
files or character description files saying this is placed here, that's
there, and here's a cute block of text describing this creature if you
look at them in info mode. At this point, that sounds like content,
and so falls into the CC licensing. But what happens if in this same
file there's a certain amount of scripting? It has logic, it assigns
variables, but it also has some programming code.

.----------------.
|CONTENT.--------.|
| |scripted||
+-------| level |+
|CODE '--------'|
| |
'-----------------'

This actually happens all the time in games (both Wesnoth and Frogatto
use an engine that's a bunch of config files that describe maps,
scenarios, storylines, and creatures but which contain a functional
programming language embedded inside them also; see
[http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/wesnoth/trunk/data/campaigns/Heir_To_The_Throne/scenarios/05b_Isle_of_the_Damned.cfg?view=markup this wesnoth level file which looks like mostly data]
and
[https://github.com/frogatto/frogatto/blob/master/data/objects/enemies/bosses/moth_boss.cfg this boss file from Frogatto that looks like code].
<ref>Technically Frogatto developers consider this to be all content,
but it's also an interpreted language. The intention here isn't to
pass judgement on their interpretation (if the developers don't intend
to enforce the copyleft on the scripting layer, they're the only ones
that can do that anyway) but their files provide pretty clear examples
despite them drawing a line somewhere else.</ref> If for example we
consider a game engine that uses Python as an interpreted language but
which has a backend bound by the GPL to have to follow the GPL, surely
combo content/code files like this might provide an "intertwined data
and code" scenario.
<ref>In fact, this issue comes up with Blender all the time, which
*does* have a backend which is scriptable with Python; see Blender's
[http://www.blender.org/education-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/ GPL for
artists page]... although I'm somewhat unconvinced that all of the
statements on that page make sense, it does demonstrate the complexity
of things.</ref>

This might seem like a very one-off type of consideration, something
not worth considering generally with CC, but I don't think it is.
Surely we want to see more free software and free culture overlapping,
and it is likely that when that happens there may be scenarios when
that happens where some sort of difficult intertwining of code and
content will happen and we'll have to consider what to do about
copyleft incompatibility.

Here's another example not game related, rooted in the physical space:
3d printing. There's a potential that 3d printing could become (and
actually, it's already starting to become) the type of revolution for
physical things what computers and the internet have been for
information.

The most popular 3d printer is something called the
[http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap RepRap], which has been released under
the GPL. Arguably because of the strength of this copyleft, several
commercial versions have been released such as the
[http://store.makerbot.com/thing-o-matic-kit-mk7.html MakerBot Thing-O-Matic].
But here's an iteration of the 3d printer called the
[http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:14111 Ronthomp Mendel]
which is labeled as being BY-SA, even though it uses a GPL'ed design.

Now, technically the BY-SA and the GPL are not compatible, and it's
probable that this is an issue of education because maybe the Ronthomp
Mendel should simply be under the GPL as well. But here's a
question... what if the Ronthomp Mendel were making use of some BY-SA
parts? What is someone tried to make a new 3d printer that made use
of some cool new gear system that someone released as BY-SA?

One could argue that in the copyleft scope, functional things such as
the RepRap should be GPL'ed (citation needed, but it's been argued at
least by Eben Moglen that GPL is great for hardware because it also
takes advantage of GPL's patent pool protections) and that purely
cultural things such as the
[http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:10367 Octocat print] should be CC BY-SA.
But a) not everyone has agreed on this, plenty of people are using
BY-SA for functional works, and b) this breakdown itself could really
stop working right when we try to create a new project that combines
cultural and functional works.

(One could possibly ask
[http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-settlers-catan-probably-not-illeg how far copyright applies to functional 3d printed works]
(and therefore, how far copyleft applies), and there's not much
background to show how it applies at all yet. I'm writing this
assuming it does apply.)

To more clearly illustrate the problem, let me first make a list of
some various cool 3d printable things under different licenses:

GPL things:
* [http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap RepRap 3d printer] (on which most modern 3d printers are based)
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:951 Bead belt gear]

BY-SA things:
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:13368 Motorized functional differential gear system]
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:14599 Robot chassis]
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:10367 Octocat]

BY things:
* [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:13827 Botmobile dune buggy]

From this list of things already we can see a list of things that
could be blocked. Say you want to power your 3d printer by human
energy by plugging in the motorized functional differential gear
system? Okay, maybe possibly you could argue that that's functional
and should have been GPL'ed, but what about the dune buggy, which is
closer to a children's toy? What about combining that with some
GPL'ed part?

But most complicated of all, what if you wanted to make a walking
cat-robot that uses a BY-SA cat design (maybe the head of the octocat)
and combines it with the robot chassis and some bears and the bead
belt gear and a bunch of other things. Suddenly we've a cool
intersection of culture and functionality is blocked by two copyleft
licenses that both have the same (and best) intentions at heart.
We've blocked the cat-robot from ever being born (well, within license
compliance) by best-intentions-copyleft. This is a problem, and if
the world continues to develop in the direction we want it to, I think
we're going to start seeing it a lot more.

= Possible actions =
== GPL compatibility ==

Probably the most actionable and most urgently raised amongst issues
when discussing with relevant community members is that of a one-way
compatibility between CC BY-SA (and probably also CC BY) and the GPL.
It's almost certainly not possible at this point (and probably
undesirable) that GPL->BY-SA compatibility is possible, but if we
choose to do it BY-SA->GPL (and probably BY->GPL) should be.

The benefits of this is that it will resolve the tricky issues with
"interwoven" content and cultural works. Clashes in copyleft licenses
which share the same goals are unfortunate if they block useful things
from being created. As
[https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676#comment-356183 Arne Babenhauserheide said],

<blockquote>... the case of cc-by-sa not being comptible with the GPL is very sad,
because they share exactly the same goals: Copyleft. Thus their
incompatibility creates a real split in cultural works. If the 4.0
licenses could make it possible to combine cc works under licenses
with compatible concepts (cc by, cc by-sa) with the GPL, that would be
a huge step towards a unified free culture.</blockquote>

So what are potential downsides? The main downside is that
[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F Creative Commons licenses are not acceptable for software]
and we don't want to spread a misconception that they are. If we go
forward with this, we should develop strong messaging that makes clear
that software should still not be released as BY-SA and that this is
for avoiding conflicts in complicated areas of interwoven cultural and
functional/software works.

The other possible downside is whether or not source requirements for
art might make incorporating BY-SA works with the GPL difficult. Ie,
there is no source requirement for BY-SA, and there is one for the
GPL. The GPL says:

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source
form of a work.

See also the "source release" section of this document for detailing
on the complexities of source code requirements in BY-SA. But as for
fulfilling the requirements of the GPL, what about the following:

* In programming, the division of what source and object code is well understood. In content it's more of a gradient
* For example, the Blender Foundation releases all the "source code" of its films such as Big Buck Bunny and etc by releasing the .blend files (though it is not a requirement of the license).
* However, what if someone made a remix of Big Buck Bunny where they changed the order of scenes, added a psychadelic overlay, and added new music. But the "source" they worked with was not on the .blend file level, but by remixing the rendered film itself. If incorporated with a GPL'ed work, would the source requirement apply, and would it in fact require sharing the source all the way down to the original .blend files?
* What about a film like Sita Sings the Blues, which is BY-SA but from which the source files were never redistributed at all? It's unlikely the content/code layers would be intertwined if combined with software, but let's pretend for a moment that it was. Would "combining" with a GPL'ed work mean requiring distribution of the original files from which the film was made? What if those were lost? What if there's still a lot you can do without the "original source files", although admittedly not as much as if you had them?
* In other words, just how far does "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" go down? What if people are remixing it on different layers, and the artists themselves prefer separate layers? Does the GPL give flexibility here?

There is additional discussion about GPL/CC compatibility [[4.0/ShareAlike#Considerations_regarding_compatibility_of_other_licenses| here]].

== Scoping copyleft across and code ==

Bart Kelsey has written an excellent article,
"[http://freegamer.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-we-need-better-copyleft-for-artists.html Why we need a stronger copyleft for artists, and how this might be accomplished]".

It's best just to read that article, but the crux of the argument is
that artists who contribute artwork to free software games often worry
that their artwork will be "lifted" and dropped into some proprietary
game. In other words, something along the lines of this:

,---------YOINK----------,
| V
.---------------. .---------------.
| FaiF CONTENT | | FaiF CONTENT |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| FaiF CODE | | CLOSED CODE |
'---------------' '---------------'

Where FaiF stands for "Free as in Freedom". The argument is that if
you're producing free-as-in-freedom content, you won't want your
content being lifted and dropped into a proprietary codebase (ie, my
dragon creature which is BY-SA could still be used with a game with a
proprietary engine). Bart has pointed out that if the artwork were
done in something like the GIMP, it would be considered on a separate
layer, so even if copyleft like CC BY-SA were used, it could still be
compromised by being lifted and dropped into a proprietary
codebase... but if the artwork were instead done embedded into the
codebase itself like so:

/* This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*/

var smiley = [
0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,
0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,
0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,
0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,
1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,
0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,
0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,
0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,
0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,
];

So, why should artists who use normal, real graphical tools not get
the same copyleft benefit of keeping their stuff protected with the
rest of the program under the GPL as do coders or artists who would
use a text-editor to hardcode their assets into their work? Are
artists being treated as if they are using some sort of second class
citizen copyleft then? Some artists in the FOSS gaming area feel that
they would be. (Some have even expressed interest in preventing
proprietization by using an -NC license, but there's an irony there in
that an NC license is proprietary anyway.)

The proposal then is for a copyleft license whose requirements reach
across the content layer over into the software layer, requiring a
free software licensed engine or etc. Complexities quickly arise as
in terms of "what about viewing the image in a proprietary browser or
other viewer, etc" and Bart has proposed trying to seperate terms out
for that, particularly by doing packaging-based copyleft.

It's easy to be sympathetic about why artists don't want their work
used in a proprietary engine. The issue is complex, and Bart has
tried to weigh out some pros and cons of this in his blogpost above.
There's also some risk in that some authors have expressed interest in
making a separate copyleft license. This could be very unfortunate
for license proliferation reasons, and especially because copyleft
does best when there's a
[http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/12/01/copyleft-pd/ single copyleft license per domain].

But here's another set of likely complexities with this:

'''Number one:''' In the example shown above, in a sense it's not true
that artists get a second class copyleft. The reverse also applies:

.---------------. .----------------.
| FaiF CONTENT | | CLOSED CONTENT |
+---------------+ +----------------+
| FaiF CODE | | FaiF CODE |
'---------------' '----------------'
| ^
'-----------YOINK---------------'

So while it's true that in the dual-layer system, copylefted
free-as-in-freedom content can be "yoinked" and dumped into a
proprietary game or game engine. But the reverse is also true;
copylefted game engine code can also be yoinked and used with to power
a free-engine-yet-proprietary game using proprietary assets. So
second class citizenship is not true; both sides are cat risk of
having their separate layer yoinked and used in something proprietary.

'''Number two:''' Getting the copyleft-works-across-layers bit to work
right without restricting mere viewer programs could be very hard to
write the correct way, could be excessively complex, and could even
end up in a license that's deemed nonfree if done wrong.

'''Number three:''' The current "separate layers" distinction between
code and content may result in some un-ideal circumstances, but people
have come to rely on it, and it's probably significantly easier to
manage things preserving these layers than to change them.

'''Number four:''' There's still a significant amount of copyleft
protection being done on the content layer even if the culture layer
is dropped onto a proprietary software layer. To put it this way: Say
Zynga or Nintendo were to take your CC BY-SA licensed 3d model and
were to drop it into their proprietary [http://wallputih.blogspot.com/ 4shared] game with their proprietary
engine. If the copyleft layer really does span the whole content
layer, then that means that they also have to release all the rest of
their content to stay in compliance, and that's potentially a
tremendous payback on its own in a way.

That said, it's very reasonable that some artists are frustrated with
this copyleft divide and we should take this into careful consideration.

== Increasing/clarifying scope of what's a derivative ==

The 3.0 Creative Commons licenses provide clarification on what is and
isn't an adaptation/derivative as opposed to a mere collection:

For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work,
performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in
timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered
an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.

Various people in the free software gaming community have commented on
the fact that it would be good to get more clarifications in the
license about what's an adaptation, making it clear that combining
works in a game ''is'' a derivative. For example, this "syncing"
example probably intends to cover works such as multiple character
models that are BY-SA all placed together and interacting in the same
file, but it doesn't explicitly say so about [http://jogosdabarbies.org/ jogos da barbie].

One concern that has been raised is that the part that "binds"
together various assets in a game is the engine itself, and that if
the copyleft doesn't extend to the engine layer, maybe it doesn't
properly encompass all assets:

[asset] [asset] [asset]
\ | /
\ | /
[engine]
|
V
Player experience

There's a good chance this isn't a concern however, as there's plenty
of things that aren't game engines that also load a bunch of separate
components and combine them into a single media experience.
[http://jogosde-moto.org/ jogos de moto]
Even so, it would be helpful to make clear that something along the
lines of loading several pieces of media together, for example in a
game, was a clear adaptation.
[http://coolmathgames-forkids.org cool math games]
For specific proposals for 4.0 relating to the scope of SA, visit the [[4.0/ShareAlike#ShareAlike_scope|ShareAlike page]].
[http://jogosdemeninass.org/ jogos de meninas]

== Source release? ==

Right now, unlike the GPL, BY-SA does not have a requirement for
source release. It's been proposed that this could possibly become a
requirement in CC BY-SA 4.0, but this seems unlikely:

* This could mean plenty of works never released with sources before will suddenly become out of compliance
* Unlike with software, where there's a clear binary of source or no source, in other forms of content it's often a gradient. See Big Buck Bunny/Sita Sings the Blues examples described the GPL compatibility section of this document.

It's likely we can't or shouldn't make this a requirement for CC BY-SA
4.0, but perhaps we could improve messaging generally to encourage
more community sharing of sources.

== DRM in BY-SA but not BY ==

In talking to some OpenGameArt members about licensing issues, several
expressed interest in keeping anti-DRM provisions in BY-SA as it's a
copyleft license, but remove them from CC BY (under the rationale the
CC BY approximately the equivalent of MIT/BSD licenses and CC BY-SA
approximately the equivalent of the GPL).

There are specific proposals about addressing DRM in Version 4.0 on the [[4.0/Technical_protection_measures|TPM page]].

<references/>

Games using CC licensed assets

2012-11-18T13:47:51Z

Greg Alexander Iaio:

Some examples to be added at http://creativecommons.org/tag/video-game ([http://friv.5ire.com/ friv games])

http://freegamedev.net/wiki/Complete_open_source_games lists a number of games, some with CC licensed assets, some assets under software licenses.

http://freegamedev.net/wiki/Art_licensing_guide looks interesting.

Similarly, some comments on this at http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Games/Upstream#Source

==Go Ollie==
* http://www.tweeler.com/index.php?PAGE=goollie_info&PLATFORM=linux&CATEGORY=commercial&GENRE=all
* Found via http://identi.ca/notice/24239197 -- "logos are nonfree but can be disabled. Art is all free, IIRC CC BY SA, music is vorbis and code is GPL"
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==LinCity NG==
* http://lincity-ng.berlios.de/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: GPL or CC BY-SA (dual license)

==REMIX THIS GAME==
* http://dto.github.com/notebook/remix-this-game.html
* Found via http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/07/18/227243/Remix-This-Game-mdash-a-Free-Software-Experiment
* Software license: GPLv3
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==Scorched 3D==
* http://www.scorched3d.co.uk/
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==Scourge==
* http://scourgeweb.org/tiki-index.php
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: Mostly CC BY-SA, with exceptions (see [http://scourgeweb.org/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=1280&topics_threshold=0&topics_offset=12&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&topics_find=&forumId=3 this discussion])

==SuperTux==
* http://supertux.org
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: GPL or CC BY-SA (dual license)

==Tremulous==
* http://tremulous.net/
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY-SA

==Yo Frankie==
* http://yofrankie.org
* Particularly interesting for using the blender game engine...
* Software license: GPL
* Content license: CC BY
* [http://jogos-dapollypocket.org/ jogos da polly]
* [http://jogosdemeninass.org/ jogos de meninas]
* [http://wallputih.blogspot.com/2012/09/gemscool.html gemscool]
* [http://jogosdabarbies.org/ jogos da barbie]
* [http://jogosde-moto.org/ jogos de moto]
* [http://coolmathgames-forkids.org cool math games]

3D Gurukul

2012-11-12T15:07:31Z

Greg Alexander Iaio:

{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://3dgurukul.com
|ccportal=http://3dgurukul.com
|format=Image, Other
|size=350
}}
3D Gurukul is a 3D animation resource Website, it is dedicated to 3D community. provides animation resources including Animations, Models, Textures, Plug-ins absolutely free [http://wallputih.blogspot.com/2012/09/gemscool.html gemscool].

Sharewiki

2012-11-12T00:18:32Z

Greg Alexander Iaio:

{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://sharewiki.org/
|format=Text
|size=160
}}
A free content wiki on [http://wallputih.blogspot.com 4shared]

OpenGameArt

2012-11-11T08:56:57Z

Greg Alexander Iaio:

{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://opengameart.org/
|format=Image, Sound, Other
|size=1000
}}
OpenGameArt contians game art under Creative Commons and GPL/LGPL licenses for use in open source [http://wallputih.blogspot.com/ game online].