Lemma Soft Forums

Having a little doubt :

I found a nice font under this license (see thread title). Does it mean I have to release a game using it under the same license (hence, source code available and redistributable and so on...) ?

I would think yes. Assuming it's the GPL and not the LGPL, it would infect the rest of your game. This isn't a major problem, as Ren'Py itself is licensed under GPL-compatible terms, but you would have to make your game available under the GPL. (Releasing source to everything, allowing the images to be used in GPL projects, and so on.)

Ok, I guess that won't do ^^;... Found a better font anyway :3. Thanks . I've never been absolutely sure about it, now I'll know

Did I read that right?

Use a GPL font, and you're obligated to release the whole source of your game, including all images?

[sarcasm] I might as well release all layered full-res images for free use[/sarcasm]

DaFool wrote:Did I read that right?

Use a GPL font, and you're obligated to release the whole source of your game, including all images?

Yes. That's part of the deal you accept in exchange for using GPL-covered code. You're never forced to accept that deal.

[sarcasm] I might as well release all layered full-res images for free use[/sarcasm]

Would that really be so bad?

PyTom wrote:

[sarcasm] I might as well release all layered full-res images for free use[/sarcasm]

Would that really be so bad?

Yes, because the original full-res layered image is the only proof that I am the creator of the work. If someone had that, they can do some minor tweaks then release the artwork and claim full credit for it.

Artwork is a shadier grey area than code, because with code you can identify chunks saying 'I contributed that'. It's almost impossible to do that with artwork, what with the myriad of filters that can totally change or distort an image versus the actual time it took to draw in the components.

Technological products are inherently different from creative products. Technological products such as software (I don't mean to say software isn't creative nor artistic, but you get the context here) only benefit from standardizing, whereas creative products such as art or literature only benefit from further individualizing.

GPL's a pain. LGPL is soooo much better. I make sure never to use GPL stuff in my projects. (even the GPL FAQ is confusing )

PyTom and I are of two different opinions when it comes to source releasing. He tends to be in favor of it (like why the need to obscure the files for games?) whereas I like obscuring files. There is no perfect obscuring scheme, but the idea is to make it enough of a pain for the casual player. Say you were playing an RPG. Would you really spend any time leveling up if you could just go in, change some files, and make yourself level 9999999? A lot of people wouldn't spend the time. Being able to cheat really changes the game experience.

Of course, I'm sure PyTom has some stuff to say about this subject, too

Cheating is not as difficult as it appear to be now, you just use some 3rd party software and voila. The spoiler in a rpg is to have the whole plot, access to graphics, sound and gameplay system with full modification available.
Why would you want to buy/finish a rpg if you already know the plot? (huh Gamefaq).
Wouldn't the developper or the graphic designer a bit sad to see their "copyrighted" work used for "commercial" amateur made game?

What's making worse for the graphic designer is that the value of his art only rely on the graphic itself, unlike coding which can be modified or even enhanced to the point that there is no longer any link with the original.

As Dafool pointed out, there is no way to prove that you are the owner of an art unless you have the original multi layered and high res file.

Adorya wrote:As Dafool pointed out, there is no way to prove that you are the owner of an art unless you have the original multi layered and high res file.

Of course, this is a specious argument. If you were to post your picture to a public service (like renai.us or deviantart.com), then you'd have an independent third-party timestamp that tells people when the picture was created. That's good evidence that you created something. (For perfect evidence, you can register your work with the US Copyright office, or the equivalent in other countries.)

This doesn't seem to be much of a problem in practice. I mean, it's fairly trivial to republish a book with your name on it, but it never happens.

This isn't a new problem, and there are ways of dealing with it.

Officially yes, there are ways to counter "art stealing", but there are also cases difficult to solve because today "bad" peoples are not silly enough to post in a public area (there are still some in deviant though).

An exemple is Art that are put directly in the net without the consent of the author (there is no original timestamp since the stealer put it 1st). Somehow he was able to scan the original for commercial use, like selling art on clothes....

You can also see many counterfeits in Ebay like auction site, some years ago there were lot of people selling M.U.G.E.N. warehouse gamepack with many characters "burrowed" from many creators (there is still the sprite debate but better not talk more about that).

Yes, there are possibilities to hunt down stealer, but it would be a big pita for some because laws are differents from country to another (I only knew recently what was the "fair use" law in U.S.) , you would waste a lot of time and energy and unless you are a paranoid professional artist, paying to protect your art in the net is also a waste of money (and you can't even say the quote "if you don't want to be stolen, don't post it in the net", because of the 1st case above )

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
Check the license, the author may have included an exception.

DaFool wrote:Technological products are inherently different from creative products. Technological products such as software (I don't mean to say software isn't creative nor artistic, but you get the context here)

Perhaps "functional" products versus "aesthetic" products?

RedSlash wrote:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
Check the license, the author may have included an exception.

I don't know many programmers who would call a compiled executable a 'document', however, meaning that I would be uncomfortable distributing -say - .rpyc files and assuming that such an exception covered them. Thus, I'd have to distribute the .rpy source to be sure of compliance, achieving the GPL's objective regardless of whether or not the font author had that intention.

(This is the main problem I have with the GPL, really; not only is it long and complicated enough that it's not immediately easy to grasp exactly what it all means, but a lot of people seem to just default to it as if it's the only available open-source license, regardless of what their actual intentions in that regard are...)

RedSlash wrote:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
Check the license, the author may have included an exception.

Not the case with that particular font, but good to know it's a possibility, thanks ^.^

- CONTENT NO LONGER RELEVANT -

That sucks

It seems like the only practical way to protect work sometimes is to have it be out there enough that anyone who rips it off will get caught and flamed by the community.