Thanks a lot for replies!

It seems this iPhone open source game has its own license and it seems to me is not complex.
https://github.com/ericjohnson/canabalt-ios/blob/master/GAME_LICENSE.TXT
Actually, that is what exactly I want. And it is only a few Enlish lines.

What do you think? Thanks in advance.

Quote:Original post by ricardo_ruiz_lopez
https://github.com/ericjohnson/canabalt-ios/blob/master/GAME_LICENSE.TXT

What do you think?

The disclaimer of warranty is copied verbatim from other sources, and as such is fairly standard, but given that the text of the license itself has numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes, I think it would be a very bad idea - this is just one of the many reasons to leave this type of thing to the experts.

Please use an OSI certified license. They work, and are pretty well known and well understood. There's no difference between using a random license found in a random project somewhere on the web and writing your own license (both are generally bad ideas).

Quote:Original post by Sander
Please use an OSI certified license. They work, and are pretty well known and well understood. There's no difference between using a random license found in a random project somewhere on the web and writing your own license (both are generally bad ideas).

Thanks. It's going to be hard to look for what I want.
Do you remember something similar to https://github.com/ericjohnson/canabalt-ios/blob/master/GAME_LICENSE.TXT?
(free source code but restricted art/sounds)

Thanks.

Quote:Original post by ricardo_ruiz_lopez
Do you remember something similar to https://github.com/ericjohnson/canabalt-ios/blob/master/GAME_LICENSE.TXT?
(free source code but restricted art/sounds)

A single license to cover two separate items under completely different terms is very unlikely to exist (or even to be a good idea, if it were written).

My rationale for this is that source code and artwork are two fundamentally different concepts, and the nature of their distribution are not entirely compatible. In general OSI-certified licenses are designed to apply only to source code, and you should consider Creative Commons licenses for art/music/video/etc.

I would honestly recommend that you release you code under the Eclipse Public License (a copy-left license slightly less restrictive than the GPL), and release your art assets under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (allows anyone to distribute the assets, but cannot be modified or used commercially).

But if that particular selection doesn't appeal, there are plenty more to choose from...