Unarmed flora & fauna additions (a question first)

[Unarmed]

Ok, as I understand I am free to modify anything from 0 A.D. without asking, I have made some simple transformations of some existing textures (some need improvement) that I want to share when I have finished a reasonable amount. I also want to modify existing models, I understand that is fine, for me it seems like a good way to learn. I hope of course to someday make my own things, it is necessary for what I would like to make down the road. But modifying seems like a good way to learn and some of the things I want to make are better done by modyfing existing stuff; I want to mainly make subspecies or species from similar animals.

I'm not sure if I understand the attribution thing, this is what I think:

-If I modify something I must name the original makers.

-If I use a image, the image must be under the Creative Commons license of course and it must also say I can modify it, I must name the original maker of the picture.

So if I use CC art or modify CC art, I must make a notepad file listing all original makers?

Here are somethings I have made, are working on or plan to do:

FLORA

-Blackberry bush (food)

-Raspberry bush (food)

-Scots Pine (wood)

-Common Hazel (edible hazelnuts) (both wood and food)

-Small English Oak (edible acorns) (food)]

-Fly amanita (poisonous mushroom) (eye candy)

-Penny bun (edible mushroom) (food)

-Wild cherry (food)

-Rowan (food)

-Sweet chestnut (food)

-Dandelion (?food? or eyecandy)

FAUNA

-Indian wolf

-Iberian wolf

-Syrian brown bear

-African wolf (not the Ethiopian wolf, but the Egyptian wolf recently discovered)

-Iberico pig

-Brown goat variation

-Chital deer

-Goitered gazelle

-Dorcas gazelle

The boltic ones I have done, but they are not finished. When they are I will show it so I can improve them, and will tell a little about the (sub)species; how they look, where they live. Some might think there is no difference between a Indian wolf and a Iberian wolf but there are, Iberian or European wolves are much thicker and have different colors.

One of my dreams is to make stuff for a Ethiopian highlands biome. The Ethiopian highlands are in my opinion one of the most beautiful of ecosystem with very unique wildlife. But I'm not capable to do that yet and maybe I never will.

So I'm starting with relatively easy stuff. By the way I am on a laptop otherwise I would have done more. My computer is being repaired.

Tips and tricks much appreciated, I am after all a noob, though I quickly figure things out.

[zoot]

I'm not sure if I understand the attribution thing, this is what I think:

-If I modify something I must name the original makers.

-If I use a image, the image must be under the Creative Commons license of course and it must also say I can modify it, I must name the original maker of the picture.

So if I use CC art or modify CC art, I must make a notepad file listing all original makers?

Basically, yes. The CC-BY-SA license has two main requirements: 1) attribution, and 2) "share-alike" (also known as "copyleft").

Attribution means that if you make a derived work from a CC-BY-SA licensed work, and distribute it to a wider audience, you have to credit the author(s) of the original work. Crediting the authors just means that you have to specify who made the original work, and that your work is based on their work. If you distribute your derived work in a .zip file or something like that, including this information in a .txt file should be fine. If you display your work directly on a website, you would have to include the information on the website. The main point is that anyone using your work should be made aware whose work it is based on.

Share-alike means that if you make a derived work from a CC-BY-SA licensed work, anyone may also use your derived work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. So, for instance, I would be allowed to make a derived work from your derived work, as long as I credit you properly etc.

Other than the two main requirements above, you obviously also have to abide by ordinary copyright law, so you can't use any works whose license don't allow you to make derived works from them.

A slightly more tricky point you should be aware of is that, if you make a work derived from multiple original works, the licenses of all the original works has to be compatible. That is, if you derive your work from work A and work B, the license terms of work A and work B must not conflict. This tool can give you a rough idea which CC licenses are compatible: http://www.web2rights.com/OERIPRSupport/creativecommons/

Note that CC-BY-SA version 2.0 is not compatible with CC-BY-SA version 3.0, though, so if you combine CC-BY-SA licensed works, you have to make sure they are all under the same version of the license.

[Unarmed]

Basically, yes. The CC-BY-SA license has two main requirements: 1) attribution, and 2) "share-alike" (also known as "copyleft").

Attribution means that if you make a derived work from a CC-BY-SA licensed work, and distribute it to a wider audience, you have to credit the author(s) of the original work. Crediting the authors just means that you have to specify who made the original work, and that your work is based on their work. If you distribute your derived work in a .zip file or something like that, including this information in a .txt file should be fine. If you display your work directly on a website, you would have to include the information on the website. The main point is that anyone using your work should be made aware whose work it is based on.

Share-alike means that if you make a derived work from a CC-BY-SA licensed work, anyone may also use your derived work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. So, for instance, I would be allowed to make a derived work from your derived work, as long as I credit you properly etc.

Other than the two main requirements above, you obviously also have to abide by ordinary copyright law, so you can't use any works whose license don't allow you to make derived works from them.

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this clearly to me. I appreciate it.

A slightly more tricky point you should be aware of is that, if you make a work derived from multiple original works, the licenses of all the original works has to be compatible. That is, if you derive your work from work A and work B, the license terms of work A and work B must not conflict. This tool can give you a rough idea which CC licenses are compatible: http://www.web2right...reativecommons/

Note that CC-BY-SA version 2.0 is not compatible with CC-BY-SA version 3.0, though, so if you combine CC-BY-SA licensed works, you have to make sure they are all under the same version of the license.

This I would not have thought of. Thank you for pointing out. It seems even more complicated than I thought.