WTactics: Original-art-give-back

[Lizard]

9. All is GPL3.

With Wesnoth being GPL2+ would that mean wesnoth needs to convert to GPL3 to use your assets? Apart from that I really like your books, they would make a nice icon.

GPL3 only

icon_book.png (6.18 KiB) Viewed 6755 times

edit: looks like UMC can use it as the wesnoth addon server does not specify under which version of the GPL you need to license your add-on. Guess that is another reason to post this in the Art Workshop.

network::send_data(construct_message("All add-ons uploaded to this server must be licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). By uploading content to this server, you certify that you have the right to place the content under the conditions of the GPL, and choose to do so."), sock, gzipped);

[eyerouge]

9. All is GPL3.

With Wesnoth being GPL2+ would that mean wesnoth needs to convert to GPL3 to use your assets? Apart from that I really like your books, they would make a nice icon.

I'm no legal expert but you have my blessing in using whatever art even if Wesnoth would be GPL2 as long as you use it under the GPL. According to this scheme it should also be in its legal order to do so.

Another thing to consider is that Wesnoth as a whole game (it's code etc) and the license it is under is probably not affected by what addons/maps/graphics you choose to use and that they could use different licenses. In other words: Using i.e. a non-GPL software on a GPL OS doesn't change the softwares or OS:s licensenses. A good example of that is Firefox (open source & free) running on MS Windows (closed + commercial).

I reckon it would be in similar manner in this case: So what if the picture is under GPL3 - it's not a part of the game and is added afterwards. While using the picture still keeps it in GPL3 and using it within Wesnoth still keeps Wesnoth within GPL2+.

Edit: Page 8 and following >> http://linux-watch.com/files/misc/GPLv2_vs_GPLv3.pdf

Somebody with more knowledge is welcome to verify this and enlighten us further though. If licensing is an issue I could probably release the rest of the works under GPL2+ if that indeed is preferred by you guys. But,m in such a cases I really need to hear that from somebody that contributes to BfW.

[Lizard]

It is nice that we can use the art, I wonder weather I should repost that icon in the icon threat.

Sorry if adding more about the license things goes bit off-topic, but I'd like to link some other scheme.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... patibility
looking into that table
OK if you upgrade to GPLv3 [3]
3: If you have the ability to release the project under GPLv2 or any later version, you can choose to release it under GPLv3 or any later version—and once you do that, you'll be able to incorporate the code released under GPLv3.
I'm not really interested in discussing that since I'm no legal expert either

[eyerouge]

It is nice that we can use the art, I wonder weather I should repost that icon in the icon threat.

Sorry if adding more about the license things goes bit off-topic, but I'd like to link some other scheme.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... patibility
looking into that table
OK if you upgrade to GPLv3 [3]
3: If you have the ability to release the project under GPLv2 or any later version, you can choose to release it under GPLv3 or any later version—and once you do that, you'll be able to incorporate the code released under GPLv3.
I'm not really interested in discussing that since I'm no legal expert either

Post where it where you may granted you follow forum rules et.c.

Spoiler:

I am however skeptical about using it as you portray it since it feels "cluttered". Maybe removing the bottom/red book and also cropping it, zomming in a little, would make it better. That said, it's off topic in here

As for the licence issue: Even if what you write is true, it wouldn't matter as long as it isn't included in BfW per default, if even then. I still don't see why anyone wouldn't be allowed to release a package of software/x bundled up together where each component has it's own license. This is btw already done in several well known projects.

[eyerouge]

wt_axe_card.png (198.66 KiB) Viewed 6690 times

WT_axe.png (133.25 KiB) Viewed 6690 times

[SFault]

The hilt looks 3D but the blade looks flat. The blade should have some thickness in that angle.

[eyerouge]

Polly wants a.... skull?

wt_raven_card.png (197.56 KiB) Viewed 6611 times

wt_raven.png (306.44 KiB) Viewed 6611 times

[Fog]

Wow, Iove the lighting! Good job.

[thespaceinvader]

I must remember that this is here when I finally come to redo the Gryphon for the Gryphon Rider portrait. That's some awesome feathers, there.

[eyerouge]

Slightly NSFW material:

wt_by_love_card.png (203.75 KiB) Viewed 6487 times

wt_by_love.png (283.1 KiB) Viewed 6487 times

[artisticdude]

Gay elves...?

[eyerouge]

Gay elves...?

1. Hetero-elves? Bi-elves? Why shouldn't there be gay elves, if indeed, that is what's in the eyes of the beholder? Have I missed out on heteronormative stereotypical anti-gay-elf-lore-rules?
2. Queers?
3. Maybe even asexual elves that wanted to kiss for some reason?
4. Maybe, due to what the card text says, a player could very well appoint a "lover" for the creature that has the same sex?

As seen, I imagine they could very well be very homosexual. Or a great number of other things.

Then again, I don't see how this discussion is relevant for anything at all. (Allthough my guess is nobody would react if it's a boy/girl.elf-thingie going on, which indeed could testify about the state of what's percieved as the "normality". I mean, why else would anyone have a remark about it at all? And why couldn't elfs make out with the same sex?)

In my imagination the Wesnoth universe has indeed creatures that aren't necessarily heterosexual or sexual at all. I don't know, nor do I care, how much this can be linked to already existing BfW lore since I also belive cultural changes and revisions in views of sexuality and love are plausible in one and the same universe, and that pretty much everything can be explained if one had the urge to write fiction about it. I also don't think WTactics must take place in the exact same timeline as BfW does, which could explain a lot. Development for some, horrible for others - I guess it depends on the individuals viewpoint and understanding of how a fantasy world should/could look like.

Lastly, there's also an ideological point in including such a depiction in WTactics: As one might guess by now, I don't want to create a heteronomative game. Among other things, this is one which can be improved upon on the CCG scene. I want an inclusive game which also relates to contemperary issues in our real world. The purpose isn't just to release an open game that looks ok and plays ok, it's also to relate the playing itself to topics around us, in whatever manner it can be done without leaving the theme of the game.

If it doesn't fit anyones shoe - don't play it or don't help (oh, I forgot, I'm already doing this by myself ) or don't use that specific card. Instead one could stick to the zillion other games where everything is in it's stereotypical casual order.

My ambition is to dare challenge the standard fantasy settings on a few accounts where everything pretty much is always the same and often totally free from thought and everything that some group somewhere would deem controversial. Thus, I have no issues with homo-elfs, in the same manner few historians would have issues with showing two males kissing in the era of, say, Alexander the Great of Macedonia.

Spoiler:

(Or maybe I'm an opportunistic sexist hetero idiot that knows about the fact that one of the most common sexual fantasies among western heterosexual men is the one where the man has sex with two or more so-called "lesbians", a fact well exploited by the american/european "adult film" industry. I guess this is also a possibility, but I'm confident future card releases will show something else to be the case...

[A-Red]

Good on you.

But shouldn't it just be <3, rather than <=3?

[Zerovirus]

I'm sure that's supposed to mean less than 3. Shouldn't you just use conventional mathematical symbols instead of arrows? Or is that meant as less than or equal to three?

[Atz]

It's less then or equal to three. It is a fairly standard notation used in several programming languages, most notably C and related languages. For reference, < would be strictly less than, != would be not equal to, and == would be equal to (a single = being used to assign values rather than compare them).

Also, if you're going for non-heteronormative and so on, pretty lesbian elves may not be the best way of going about it. It seems rather likely to be regarded as a display for the titillation of straight men. Not that I'm saying you can't have them, it just may not be quite as liberating as you thought, is all.