Toy Assets License?

#1 I believe the license applies to everything in that repository although I agree, perhaps the licensing for those assets need to be explicit and clear.

There are actually many more assets available here that we could add but we didn't want to bulk up the repository with them unnecessarily.

I'll double-check the licensing with Mich in-case I'm wrong here.

#2 How about a separate asset/toy repository later?

#3 I can't speak for how GG want to organize their repos but anything is possible.

I guess the beauty is that because assets are isolated to the module they're in, anyone can publish assets as "packs", host them in a repo, publish them in a zip etc.

They could also work well as sub-modules in a git repository as well.

#4 Assets are a tricky thing. There isn't a MIT license for artwork. The closest is a Creative Commons license, which we did not include. However, I do think the intention is that the artwork in the repository is free to use for your own purposes. I will have to double check with Eric to make sure, though.

#5 Thanks Melv and Michael for looking into this. I checked out the CC licensing (http://creativecommons.org/choose/) and their six variations so once there is official word, that would be great!

#6 I know that with Torque 3D, we intended to release all of the assets in the repository under the MIT license as well (to avoid dual-licensing confusion, especially since we wanted to choose a content license with the same spirit as MIT). We talked about Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution Unported as our other license for content since it is the exact same spirit as the MIT license, but with more legalese. It wasn't as simple to grok at first read, but it retained copyright, but allowed commercial and non-commercial work and sharing, editing, etc without the restrictions of other licenses.

Considering the number of people who confused the MIT license with the GPL, LGPL, or dual-licensed software, adding a second license, regardless of if it fit the same spirit of openness, was an extra layer of confusion.

I'm sure Eric will chime in on the spirit of the T2D content licensing.

#7 Our intention is for them to be used in the same manor as MIT. I guess it really comes down to what you need as proof of that. Perhaps we could put a file in the root dir similar to what's in T3D?

#8 I guess no proof is needed with this forum topic but just wanted to clarify if I (or someone else out there) went down the path with some of these assets. But if T3D had a file in the asset root, doing the same here makes sense (especially if anyone contributes in that section).

Thanks!
-Gary

#9 A related question, what about art assets that were included in previous versions of the engine? I believe the license specified we could use them in a run time format game.

Is there a chance that can be opened up so we can use them in example toys or modules shared with the community?

#10 @Mike - Well, we have already included several of the art assets from TGB and iTorque 2D. Any other art assets from the past engines still fall under the license they were purchased under. If we (someone from GG) start adding new assets to the repository, we will try to include them under the same CC will be adding.