Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Scoot951

Pages: [1]
Glad to see this was updated so quickly! Usually I expect legalese changes to take a couple years to get gotten around to.

I think even just including it in the larger work counts as 'arranging' it, and it could be very difficult to include it in a way that does not somehow transform or modify it as well. Even something as simple as a bit of color/lighting could count.

Content - Substance Share - Re: License clarification.
 on: September 16, 2015, 02:40:40 pm 
The impression I've gotten from discussions on a number of other sites seems to lay it out like this: Yes, your entire render would be under CC-BY-SA. You can share it, but only as CC-BY-SA itself. If you distributed a model with the material combined (such as part of a game/unity demo/whatever) it would all be BY-SA, but if you distributed it as parts (a zip file with the model file and the texture files) then you could specify.

The primary concern is commercial use. While the license allows commercial use, it also allows anyone who buys the product (or even just sees it) to copy it and sell it themselves as long as they give attribution. In some cases this may not be a concern, but it is a concern to anyone selling something they expect to sell more than one copy of. Like, it might be fine to use it to make a poster to promote a commercial concert (if you don't mind people copying your poster), but if you're selling a game you probably want to stay away from SA.

Yea, this is a discussion I've had elsewhere before, and the general consensus is usually that a game containing SA content is a derived work and thus the entire game must be under CC-BY-SA (Blendswap for example works under this interpretation). Unfortunately I don't think CC themselves have ever clarified it, but in the one example they give in the license, using music in a video makes the entire video SA, not just the song.

While this interpretation might be wrong, unless someone can point to an actual court case or clarifying statement from CC, using SA content in a commercial work seems to be very risky.

I don't mind if people want to put their work under SA, but it's not really an all-situations kind of license. Giving people an option of CC0/BY/BY-SA would allow more flexibility.

Thanks for making this happen! Much appreciated!

But.. license for these is CC-BY-SA?

Doesn't that mean that if we include anything from substance share to our products, our own product must distributed with CC-BY-SA license as well, right?

"ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. "

Yea, while CC-BY-SA technically allows commercial use, it makes it useless for that purpose. One person could buy your product and then copy and sell it themselves.

Pages: [1]