Warzone 2100 Forums

Haven't forgotten -- just been a tad busy... but I wanted to add a little something to make more of a scene out of it for a menu screen.  So I thought I's model a quick, simple... um, okay, so I might have lost track of the 'simple' bit while I was modeling, so sue me...

I'll get to work on the actual scene soon, I'm sure... 

That's very nice too. You should put that in the background with some other tank near it [maybe with the other part of the pepperpot battery, making the whole scene look better]

cathuria, do you use 3DS max? or what program else?

HCN-Trooper: Modo is my current tool of choice; it's still a growing app and is missing a few features that I would really like, but it is hands down the most efficient modeler I've ever used... plus its lightning fast renderer.
http://www.luxology.com/

I's back... you know, trying to compose a picture around a big-butt menu in the middle of everything is a bit perplexing.  I may have to take a few more stabs at it.
Anyhow, here is my first attempt at a menu screen -- let me know how you think it works (or doesn't).

http://www.cathuria.com/improbable/pepperpot2-bdrop.png

on this monitor on xp sp 2 = looks good.  chose the stretch background mode.... is a little blurred but still looks good.

Under what license do/would you put these images?

Kamaze wrote: Under what license do/would you put these images?

Well, that bdrop image I just posted was published without authorship or copyright claim on it, and I don't do that by accident; call it Art Libre if you like.
As for the first image in this thread... to tell the truth, I hadn't really thought about it -- but as I said earlier, I'm happy to let the image be used to promote the WRP.  Geez, there are so many licenses... put it this way: what did you have in mind?

cathuria wrote: Well, that bdrop image I just posted was published without authorship or copyright claim on it, and I don't do that by accident; call it Art Libre if you like.
As for the first image in this thread... to tell the truth, I hadn't really thought about it -- but as I said earlier, I'm happy to let the image be used to promote the WRP.  Geez, there are so many licenses... put it this way: what did you have in mind?

We tend to like the GNU GPL (any version) or the Creative Commons (BY-SA) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ however any reasonably permissive license should be fine

Regards, Freddie.

The GPL is not suitable for anything other than source code.

It can be interpreted for data as well. The requirement then would be that a lossless image (i.e. PNG, but not JPEG) is provided. Better in this case would even be if the 3D modeler scene would be provided. It's really mostly an interpretation thing.
But I agree that using CC BY-SA 3.0 would be easier to apply and would require less material ("sourcecode") from the artist.

i believe the interpretation is distinguished based on *what* you're releasing under gpl. if you release the *image*, then the scene data is not required, as someone could still edit the image and rerelease it.

I'm with DevUrandom -- no way am I getting involved in figuring out what amounts to 'source code' for digital art

So, I've been reading up on all that Creative Commons stuff... yeesh, you guys made me do homework!

I have an inclination that something provided for free should remain free, but I see some disagreement over the impact and fairness of the "Non-Commercial" restriction in a license (-by -nc -sa).  What's your folks' thoughts on that?

Don't count my word on this, but I think that NC also prevents distribution-for-payment, like done by some Linux distros, game-magazines, etc... Possibly someone knows that better than me, though.

DevUrandom wrote:Don't count my word on this, but I think that NC also prevents distribution-for-payment, like done by some Linux distros, game-magazines, etc... Possibly someone knows that better than me, though.

Yes, that's exactly the problem with it, the licence text forbids any use "that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation" (whatever that may mean exactly, but it is not as permissive as the GPL).

CC BY-SA corresponds roughly to the GPL, that's why I think we should limit the "main" game to those two licences (stuff under other licences can still be offered separately), to keep the licencing somewhat simple.