Hi — thanks for building this, the engine and the art direction are genuinely lovely.
We're evaluating reusing the assets in a commercial internal product, and I want to get the licensing right before we do. I couldn't find an explicit answer in the repo, so raising it here.
What's clear:
- The repo's top-level
LICENSE is MIT, and package.json declares "license": "MIT" with dist/assets/ in the files array.
- The character sheets are credited in the README to JIK-A-4, Metro City, which is CC0 1.0. No ambiguity there.
What I'd like confirmed:
There's no LICENSE, CREDITS, NOTICE, or ATTRIBUTION file anywhere under webview-ui/public/assets/**, and the per-item manifest.json files carry geometry only — no author or licence field. So for the ~40 non-character PNGs (furniture, floors, walls, carpets, pets), the licence rests on inference from the repo-level MIT plus the PR #117 description calling them "original".
Two questions:
-
Does the MIT licence cover webview-ui/public/assets/** — specifically the furniture, floor, wall, carpet and pet art? I note the CHANGELOG for v1.1.0 says it "replaces bundled proprietary tileset with open-source assets", which suggests a deliberate move to redistributable art, but I'd rather not rely on my reading of it.
-
Are those assets original work by the project, or sourced from elsewhere? If sourced, knowing the upstream would let us verify terms directly.
If the answer to (1) is yes, would you consider adding a short webview-ui/public/assets/LICENSE (or an ASSETS.md) stating it? It'd remove the ambiguity for everyone downstream, not just us — this seems like the kind of thing several people will hit.
Happy to open a PR adding such a file if you tell me what it should say.
Thanks again.
Hi — thanks for building this, the engine and the art direction are genuinely lovely.
We're evaluating reusing the assets in a commercial internal product, and I want to get the licensing right before we do. I couldn't find an explicit answer in the repo, so raising it here.
What's clear:
LICENSEis MIT, andpackage.jsondeclares"license": "MIT"withdist/assets/in thefilesarray.What I'd like confirmed:
There's no
LICENSE,CREDITS,NOTICE, orATTRIBUTIONfile anywhere underwebview-ui/public/assets/**, and the per-itemmanifest.jsonfiles carry geometry only — no author or licence field. So for the ~40 non-character PNGs (furniture, floors, walls, carpets, pets), the licence rests on inference from the repo-level MIT plus the PR #117 description calling them "original".Two questions:
Does the MIT licence cover
webview-ui/public/assets/**— specifically the furniture, floor, wall, carpet and pet art? I note the CHANGELOG for v1.1.0 says it "replaces bundled proprietary tileset with open-source assets", which suggests a deliberate move to redistributable art, but I'd rather not rely on my reading of it.Are those assets original work by the project, or sourced from elsewhere? If sourced, knowing the upstream would let us verify terms directly.
If the answer to (1) is yes, would you consider adding a short
webview-ui/public/assets/LICENSE(or anASSETS.md) stating it? It'd remove the ambiguity for everyone downstream, not just us — this seems like the kind of thing several people will hit.Happy to open a PR adding such a file if you tell me what it should say.
Thanks again.