Fix Incorrect / Missing Licensing Issues

[jrconway3]

Taken from here:
sanderfrenken#142

A lot of licensing details are outdated, and some assets may be incorrectly attributed as well. We should discuss these issues and figure out where the licenses need to be cleaned up.

One big one is the addition of the OGA-BY 3.0 license. This license is designed with the idea in mind to allow Creative Commons licensed assets to be used in DRM-based environments, namely mobile and Steam. While there's still a debate over whether or not the restriction actually does apply in those contexts, OGA-BY 3.0 is still a safer license to go with as it has provisions given by the original artist specifically to go onto those environments.

Back in 2022 OGA's admin MedicineStorm made a lot of requests from various artists to support OGA-BY 3.0 on their assets.

The following for sure have agreed to support OGA-BY 3.0 on their assets:

• All LPC Assets Created by Sharm
• All LPC Assets Created by Redshrike
• All LPC Assets Created by Makrohn
• All LPC Assets Created by Nilla122
• All LPC Assets Created by Wulax
• All LPC Assets Created by JaidynReiman
• MadMarcel's Orcs and Pirates
• Joe White's Hairstyles: https://opengameart.org/content/ponytail-and-plain-hairstyles

The biggest question here comes in the form of derivatives. If another user modified an asset and that was updated to be OGA-BY, do we need to keep that derivative license? How many changes are required to consider it derivative enough?

At the very least, if the original asset is not OGA-BY we shouldn't include that license. Typically, the way licenses work is you can apply a stricter license over a looser licensed asset, but not the other way around. An asset in CC-BY-SA would require all derivatives to also by CC-BY-SA. However, CC-BY assets could also be released in CC-BY-SA, and OGA-BY assets could also be released under other licenses.

In terms of strictness, the order goes as follows, from least strict to most strict:

1. CC0
2. OGA-BY
3. CC-BY
4. CC-BY-SA

Assets with multiple licenses, however, can be freely released in any of the licenses made available, or even all of them. So if a looser license is one of the available licenses, stricter licenses can also be mixed in.

Incorrect Attribution:

Some assets may have incorrect attribution. If any other assets are seen as well, please provide input. Any help in identifying whether the attribution is correct or not is also appreciated.

If any other issues are noticed, please leave them in the comments. Also if any assets are incorrectly labeled with a certain license please clarify. Derivative assets can cause some confusion in knowing how exactly to license them, even if the original artist added support for new licenses (like OGA-BY).

[jrconway3]

Formal Pants:

I believe this license has some incorrect attributions. I'll explain.

Bluecarrot16's Gentlemen includes Formal Shirts and Formal Pants, among other assets:
https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-gentleman

This heavily involves a lot of assets from Pennomi and Laetissima's "2 Characters":
https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-2-characters

In our credits.csv it also mentions Wulax's asset:
https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-medieval-fantasy-character-sprites

However, the original LPC Gentlemen doesn't reference Wulax at all. Furthermore, the Pants in "2 Characters" are not credited to Pennomi and Laetissima. They did the other assets, but not the Pants specifically. The Pants are identical to Redshrike's original pants:
https://opengameart.org/content/liberated-pixel-cup-lpc-base-assets-sprites-map-tiles

So I believe the Formal Pants should only credit Redshrike and Bluecarrot16. With the new additions to Formal Pants, JaidynReiman and ElizaWy should also be credited as well. In addition, this asset could theoretically be released in OGA-BY (just the Pants, not the other Gentlemen assets).

I did post this in OGA-BY as a result:
https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-expanded-pants

However, I can remove that if bluecarrot16 doesn't approve. I think this is accurate, though.